You're thinking along the wrong lines here. While a lot of what you said is true, you're missing an important detail.
Scientists building bombs know the bombs won't be used on them- if so, they wouldn't do it, or they would design them to be defective; it's in their own self interest.
Similarly, access to information, a good portion of which is online, is the lifeblood of the industry in question. Any effective solution to the "problem" would have to be a complete block of the data in question. If this was the case, then they're potentially cutting off something very important to them, not only on a personal level but on a professional level. And in most cases, something designed this way could have its scope modified by someone with far lesser technical knowledge than the person who designed it initially. A person with the knowhow to pull something like this off would almost certainly allow a way for at least that individual to still access anything he or she would want to. And if one person can get in, well, others will find their way, and the whole solution will prove to be pointless. We've actually seen this happen time and time again; it's why nothing gets locked down completely, and people can always find their way in.
That is what I'm referring to. That is why it will not happen. And that is what you are completely missing.
You misunderstand completely. What I am saying is that that level of technical knowledge isn't something that a politician just picks a book on and learns. It almost requires an interest in that field, and most likely means that your career is focused in that field. That being said, how many people would bite the hand that feeds them? That source of knowledge is their livelihood and a major interest for them. It would be counter-productive towards their own interest. That is what I was referring to as the vested interest in keeping it open; because if they come up with a way to block all access to one piece of information, someone else can copy that and block THEM from accessing something they need.
In addition to all of that- assuming there was a foolproof way to completely restrict certain things while allowing other things to get through, I doubt those who would have the ability to implement it would do so; I would think anyone that knowledgeable would have a vested interest in the information remaining free.
I dunno how effective it would be for me. I have to get up to a pretty decent run to get my heart rate to a point where its any real benefit, and I doubt I could type well at a run. As for FPS, most of them already reduce your accuracy when your toon is moving; compound that with the physical movement of your body and you probably won't be hitting much; this problem could be mitigated by just having pixel perfect aim in the game and letting the actual movement be the cause of inaccuracy, but I can see that being abused...
During peak times, more current is being drawn, putting more wear and tear on the equipment. This in turn requires more staffing during peak times for preventive and reactionary maintenance. The higher peak charges are likely to be mostly attributed to wages and maintenance costs.
"If they win, then any attempt to analyze and modify a running program would constitute copyright violation"
Interestingly enough, that would also make Blizzards anti-cheating mechanisms illegal.
Delaware does not have a standard sales tax (aside from taxes affixed to certain items ahead of time like cigarettes, that is), so I suppose it would be 49 states then?
Then again, Delaware may well not be the only state without sales tax.
The biggest difference between highway and city miles is really the stopping and going; no red lights on the highway, toll booths notwithstanding when applicable. Even then, a lot of toll roads offer the sensor thingies (technical term) that let you just drive through one lane at highway speed.
You're twisting the statement. The statement itself is true. For the initial start, you have to overcome static friction, which is significantly more resistance than sliding friction. For the acceleration process, you have to overcome that same sliding friction, as well as wind resistance, with enough force to accelerate to highway speeds without being rear ended. Once you are up to highway speed, its just a matter of maintaining that speed, leaving you with only sliding friction and wind resistance to overcome.
So yes, you will consume more fuel in that first mile, having spent 1/8th-1/4 of it accelerating to highway speed, then you will in subsequent miles, by an appreciable margin. Acceleration just plain uses more gas than maintaining your speed. That is why you get better gas mileage on the highway than in a city with most vehicles.
This does not mean, nor does it even imply, that 399 miles of sustaining your speed uses less gas than 1 mile of acceleration. But 1 mile of sustaining your speed uses significantly less.
"Species go extinct because of the following reasons:
-You destroy their ecosystem. We aren't destroying their ecosystem. We're only making another species of mosquito that they can't live in... yet
-You destroy their food source. There's still normal mosquitoes for them to grow up in, and there's still people for them to mature and spread from.
-You kill them off faster than they reproduce With mosquitoes? Not goona happen!
There's a reason your doctor tells you to take the full bottle of antibiotics, even after you start to feel better. Because if you stop have way and don't kill it off entirely, the infection comes back and is twice as hard to kill because it's become resistant to the stuff you took before. Trying to fix malaria with super mosquitoes may solve a short term problem, but the infection will adapt and come back twice as strong."
Destroy their ecosystem/foodsource: As a parasitic organism, Malaria's ecosystem and foodsource are one and the same; the host organism. Most hosts do not transmit malaria. The only real way they are transmitted from host to host is through mosquitos; they intake one hosts blood, and then the malaria is given to another host via saliva. Reduce the number of mosquitos capable of transmitting it, and the remaining malaria are "trapped" in their current hosts. The hosts will die off over time, with less new hosts becoming available to replace the dead ones. Eventually, the number stabilizes, but at a far lower number of hosts.
As for killing them off faster than they reproduce: There is a limit to the number of parasites that can live within one host without killing the host, and when the host dies, the parasites die soon thereafter. The decline in the number of potential carriers leads to a decline in the number of potential hosts. This has the net affect of killing them faster than they reproduce; the malaria population stabilizes at each generation, but at a lower number, until either malaria mutates and can be transmitted by the altered mosquitos, or the mosquitos who can carry it are completely replaced by the immune ones.
It has already been shown that within 3 generations, the modified mosquitos have outbred the originals by nearly an order of magnitude, accounting for 70% of the population. Given the rate at which mosquitos can reproduce and their short lifespan, I'd say its quite likely that malaria will run out of hosts before it has had time to mutate enough to affect the modified mosquitos.
And finally, even if this fails, it's unlikely to make malaria any worse than it is now. Right now, any mosquito can be a potential carrier of malaria. If a mutation occurs to make it possible to infect the modified mosquitos, we have a scenario where, once again, any mosquito can be a potential carrier of malaria. By the time the mutation takes place, however, there will already be a significantly lower population, which still puts us in a better position than we are now.
But we aren't talking about the mosquitos going extinct here; we're talking about removing the sole carrier of malaria by introducing a genetically modified version of the mosquito.
According to TFA, the 'enhanced' mosquitos showed enough of an advantage over the normal ones so as to make up 70% of the population within 3 generations.
Unless a strain of malaria already exists that would still be able to be carried by the genetically altered mosquitos, the chances of natural mutations progressing quickly enough to counter this are remote at best, and most likely infinitesimal.
Were the mosquitos developing this genetic alteration naturally over a much longer course of time, its one thing, but this is a specifically targetted genetic modification.
I totally agree. The problem is ignorance on both sides- there are speakers who will just blurt things out, however offensively they could be interpreted, and there are listeners who are out to pick a fight, that will pick apart even the most well-spoken statement, not for the nugget of value, but for the one thing he or she can take offense to.
"I frequently see comments that people assume are antagonistic and feel that the antagonism is in the ears of the, um, belistener."
This could be argued, but at the same time, in many things, perception may as well be reality. If you make a statement that unintentionally offends someone, the end result is that they are offended, and in most cases will lash back. So it boils down to a question of political correctness vs. free speech, really. Care needs to be taken with ones words in some situations, but on the other hand: Why should one be required to censor oneself to prevent angering someone who is out looking for a fight to begin with?
Lose-lose...
In my experience, just because a company can afford it doesn't mean they'll fork over the money for it- and the more money a company has, the less inclined it is to spend it.
The company I currently work for offers a VPN for those who would like to do some of their work from home, but they do so with a mentality of it being a luxury, and if it doesn't work, their option is to go to work. It's a ridiculous policy, and next to no support is offered for it.
The company can most definitely afford to support it, but it's not a priority. That could easily be the case in other companies as well.
So you made the effort, then threw it away because you decided he wasn't worth it? May as well have posted since the effort was already made; now its just a troll post.
I never said I personally was a Christian; I am playing Devil's Advocate here.
I would point out, however, that the lengths you are going through to 'win' are exactly what I was talking about previously. And the assumptions you make, the level of offense you appear to be taking (though admittedly, text is a poor medium for conveying this), and your gross generalizations of a groups beliefs (especially given that the group in question is not taking part in this discussion) are as great as those of a religious zealot as well.
As said before, the verbage used in the article is a cop out, but an intelligent one- it avoids indirectly attacking the beliefs of either side. As demonstrated quite thoroughly in this dialogue, even the non-religious side tends to become insufferable when they perceive their beliefs to be attacked.
Of course, you would argue that what you believe is fact- just as a religious zealot would. And thats the kind of cyclical debate that such verbage attempts to avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
You're thinking along the wrong lines here. While a lot of what you said is true, you're missing an important detail. Scientists building bombs know the bombs won't be used on them- if so, they wouldn't do it, or they would design them to be defective; it's in their own self interest. Similarly, access to information, a good portion of which is online, is the lifeblood of the industry in question. Any effective solution to the "problem" would have to be a complete block of the data in question. If this was the case, then they're potentially cutting off something very important to them, not only on a personal level but on a professional level. And in most cases, something designed this way could have its scope modified by someone with far lesser technical knowledge than the person who designed it initially. A person with the knowhow to pull something like this off would almost certainly allow a way for at least that individual to still access anything he or she would want to. And if one person can get in, well, others will find their way, and the whole solution will prove to be pointless. We've actually seen this happen time and time again; it's why nothing gets locked down completely, and people can always find their way in. That is what I'm referring to. That is why it will not happen. And that is what you are completely missing.
You misunderstand completely. What I am saying is that that level of technical knowledge isn't something that a politician just picks a book on and learns. It almost requires an interest in that field, and most likely means that your career is focused in that field. That being said, how many people would bite the hand that feeds them? That source of knowledge is their livelihood and a major interest for them. It would be counter-productive towards their own interest. That is what I was referring to as the vested interest in keeping it open; because if they come up with a way to block all access to one piece of information, someone else can copy that and block THEM from accessing something they need.
In addition to all of that- assuming there was a foolproof way to completely restrict certain things while allowing other things to get through, I doubt those who would have the ability to implement it would do so; I would think anyone that knowledgeable would have a vested interest in the information remaining free.
Worse than that, they can actually detect traces of THC from your HAIR for up to 6 months afterwards.
And do we really want our tax money buying cyber prostitutes to give our cyber soldiers computer viruses?
There is only reason I even know where Estonia is. It's the first level in the original Command and Conquer. GG American Public Education System >.
I dunno how effective it would be for me. I have to get up to a pretty decent run to get my heart rate to a point where its any real benefit, and I doubt I could type well at a run. As for FPS, most of them already reduce your accuracy when your toon is moving; compound that with the physical movement of your body and you probably won't be hitting much; this problem could be mitigated by just having pixel perfect aim in the game and letting the actual movement be the cause of inaccuracy, but I can see that being abused...
Correlation does not necessarily mean a cause and effect relationship.
Being exposed to the near-vacuum of space for an extended period of time, aren't the bacteria likely to be "pulled apart" at the molecular level?
During peak times, more current is being drawn, putting more wear and tear on the equipment. This in turn requires more staffing during peak times for preventive and reactionary maintenance. The higher peak charges are likely to be mostly attributed to wages and maintenance costs.
"If they win, then any attempt to analyze and modify a running program would constitute copyright violation" Interestingly enough, that would also make Blizzards anti-cheating mechanisms illegal.
Delaware does not have a standard sales tax (aside from taxes affixed to certain items ahead of time like cigarettes, that is), so I suppose it would be 49 states then? Then again, Delaware may well not be the only state without sales tax.
The biggest difference between highway and city miles is really the stopping and going; no red lights on the highway, toll booths notwithstanding when applicable. Even then, a lot of toll roads offer the sensor thingies (technical term) that let you just drive through one lane at highway speed.
You're twisting the statement. The statement itself is true. For the initial start, you have to overcome static friction, which is significantly more resistance than sliding friction. For the acceleration process, you have to overcome that same sliding friction, as well as wind resistance, with enough force to accelerate to highway speeds without being rear ended. Once you are up to highway speed, its just a matter of maintaining that speed, leaving you with only sliding friction and wind resistance to overcome. So yes, you will consume more fuel in that first mile, having spent 1/8th-1/4 of it accelerating to highway speed, then you will in subsequent miles, by an appreciable margin. Acceleration just plain uses more gas than maintaining your speed. That is why you get better gas mileage on the highway than in a city with most vehicles. This does not mean, nor does it even imply, that 399 miles of sustaining your speed uses less gas than 1 mile of acceleration. But 1 mile of sustaining your speed uses significantly less.
"Species go extinct because of the following reasons:
-You destroy their ecosystem. We aren't destroying their ecosystem. We're only making another species of mosquito that they can't live in... yet
-You destroy their food source. There's still normal mosquitoes for them to grow up in, and there's still people for them to mature and spread from.
-You kill them off faster than they reproduce With mosquitoes? Not goona happen!
There's a reason your doctor tells you to take the full bottle of antibiotics, even after you start to feel better. Because if you stop have way and don't kill it off entirely, the infection comes back and is twice as hard to kill because it's become resistant to the stuff you took before. Trying to fix malaria with super mosquitoes may solve a short term problem, but the infection will adapt and come back twice as strong."
Destroy their ecosystem/foodsource: As a parasitic organism, Malaria's ecosystem and foodsource are one and the same; the host organism. Most hosts do not transmit malaria. The only real way they are transmitted from host to host is through mosquitos; they intake one hosts blood, and then the malaria is given to another host via saliva. Reduce the number of mosquitos capable of transmitting it, and the remaining malaria are "trapped" in their current hosts. The hosts will die off over time, with less new hosts becoming available to replace the dead ones. Eventually, the number stabilizes, but at a far lower number of hosts.
As for killing them off faster than they reproduce: There is a limit to the number of parasites that can live within one host without killing the host, and when the host dies, the parasites die soon thereafter. The decline in the number of potential carriers leads to a decline in the number of potential hosts. This has the net affect of killing them faster than they reproduce; the malaria population stabilizes at each generation, but at a lower number, until either malaria mutates and can be transmitted by the altered mosquitos, or the mosquitos who can carry it are completely replaced by the immune ones.
It has already been shown that within 3 generations, the modified mosquitos have outbred the originals by nearly an order of magnitude, accounting for 70% of the population. Given the rate at which mosquitos can reproduce and their short lifespan, I'd say its quite likely that malaria will run out of hosts before it has had time to mutate enough to affect the modified mosquitos.
And finally, even if this fails, it's unlikely to make malaria any worse than it is now. Right now, any mosquito can be a potential carrier of malaria. If a mutation occurs to make it possible to infect the modified mosquitos, we have a scenario where, once again, any mosquito can be a potential carrier of malaria. By the time the mutation takes place, however, there will already be a significantly lower population, which still puts us in a better position than we are now.
But we aren't talking about the mosquitos going extinct here; we're talking about removing the sole carrier of malaria by introducing a genetically modified version of the mosquito. According to TFA, the 'enhanced' mosquitos showed enough of an advantage over the normal ones so as to make up 70% of the population within 3 generations. Unless a strain of malaria already exists that would still be able to be carried by the genetically altered mosquitos, the chances of natural mutations progressing quickly enough to counter this are remote at best, and most likely infinitesimal. Were the mosquitos developing this genetic alteration naturally over a much longer course of time, its one thing, but this is a specifically targetted genetic modification.
Exactly. Because every species that has been threatened has evolved to counter it, and nothing has ever gone extinct.
Does it matter? I got their records via bit torrent.
I totally agree. The problem is ignorance on both sides- there are speakers who will just blurt things out, however offensively they could be interpreted, and there are listeners who are out to pick a fight, that will pick apart even the most well-spoken statement, not for the nugget of value, but for the one thing he or she can take offense to.
"I frequently see comments that people assume are antagonistic and feel that the antagonism is in the ears of the, um, belistener." This could be argued, but at the same time, in many things, perception may as well be reality. If you make a statement that unintentionally offends someone, the end result is that they are offended, and in most cases will lash back. So it boils down to a question of political correctness vs. free speech, really. Care needs to be taken with ones words in some situations, but on the other hand: Why should one be required to censor oneself to prevent angering someone who is out looking for a fight to begin with? Lose-lose...
Give the guy a break. The two things perform the same function. But If you're in a mood to split hairs, I've got plenty.
In my experience, just because a company can afford it doesn't mean they'll fork over the money for it- and the more money a company has, the less inclined it is to spend it. The company I currently work for offers a VPN for those who would like to do some of their work from home, but they do so with a mentality of it being a luxury, and if it doesn't work, their option is to go to work. It's a ridiculous policy, and next to no support is offered for it. The company can most definitely afford to support it, but it's not a priority. That could easily be the case in other companies as well.
So you made the effort, then threw it away because you decided he wasn't worth it? May as well have posted since the effort was already made; now its just a troll post.
You are aware that there are costs involved with using an 'official' certificate authority, aren't you? It may not be in the budget.
I never said I personally was a Christian; I am playing Devil's Advocate here. I would point out, however, that the lengths you are going through to 'win' are exactly what I was talking about previously. And the assumptions you make, the level of offense you appear to be taking (though admittedly, text is a poor medium for conveying this), and your gross generalizations of a groups beliefs (especially given that the group in question is not taking part in this discussion) are as great as those of a religious zealot as well. As said before, the verbage used in the article is a cop out, but an intelligent one- it avoids indirectly attacking the beliefs of either side. As demonstrated quite thoroughly in this dialogue, even the non-religious side tends to become insufferable when they perceive their beliefs to be attacked. Of course, you would argue that what you believe is fact- just as a religious zealot would. And thats the kind of cyclical debate that such verbage attempts to avoid.