Additionally, if the HIV is limited to the bone marrow, theoretically, a complete myeloablative transplant should eradicate it, regardless of whether or not the donor possesses the CCR5/32 mutation, no?
This sounds like something that could be used for selective enforcement against someone the authorities dislike, for some reason, but aren't able to lay charges for any real crimes.
if in the future one of these people needs a bone marrow transplant, they have a perfect match.
Technically, yes, but it's not necessarily that simple. In an autologous transplant, where the patient receives their own cells, this is correct.
But, in many cases, the entire purpose of the procedure is to replace the cells with those of a separate donor (allogeneic transplant), because the patient's bone marrow itself is the cause of the condition requiring a transplant in the first place.
Flash works great using Skyfire on my Pocket PC. The "hover" capability is covered quite nicely by the 5-way control buttons (up/dn/left/right and center), which moves a pointer around like a grid.
Javascript and CSS menus that act on hovering also work just fine this way.
Y'know, that whole list of 25 is really just a few items expanded into verbosity. You could basically narrow it down to unsanitized user input, unencrypted sensitive data, improper or no data length control, improper or no condition control, improper data storage, improper or no linearity control.
That's a six-item list that should really be common sense for any decent programmer.
The other points of this discussion are determining what potential vulnerabilities are even applicable, the likelihood of an attack occuring and how much the client is actually willing to pay if that likelihood is low.
As humorous as that was, this is exactly the sort of security that actually works: looking people in the eyes, asking questions, being trained to skillfully detect what constitutes an honest response.
The general stupid masses of the western world see the fancy x-ray machines, silvery conveyor tables and shiny rent-a-cop badges and think this somehow translates to better security. But this is not security, this is an illusion of security. This is just put on for show so that your representatives in government (hahahaha... I know) can appear to be doing something about those dern terrrrists.
Security is not a product or a technology. Security, in the case of an airport, is an active process of identifying risks through layers of highly-trained intelligence personel; not high school drop-outs hired to press buttons.
So, they're not banning it, technically, they're simply making it impossible to sell in a legal manner.
So, exactly, how gullible are the Australian people and/or how stupid are their politicians for anyone to think these two things are different from each other?
"Never" is correct. Remember, when you were young, how your mother told you that, no matter how smart you think you are, there's always someone smarter?
No matter how smart an AI developer may be, there's always someone smarter; or someone with a different type of intelligence.
This world needs to learn some forgiveness. I understand that the judges and other competitors must have felt cheated -- and rightfully so -- but a lifetime ban is just pure vengeance and no logic. Five or ten-year ban? Sure. Being banned from participating in a prestigious contest for which you have a passion for 20% or more of your life (perhaps 30% of your working life) is still quite a punishment. Banning someone for life is just making an example for example's sake.
Excuse me while I stray a little off-topic here with an extreme analogy: it's like how someone who was caught with half-an-ounce of weed ten years ago can't get certain jobs, can't cross some international borders, etc. It needs to stop. There needs to be an international statute of limitations on how long you can hold a minor offense over someone's head. A life sentence only makes sense when the offender's actions have taken someone else's life.
Case in point: stop giving people life-long punishments for minor offenses just to make examples of them.
ICANN proposes hundreds of new TLDs for cash-grab.
From TFA:
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a pre-registration process for organizations that want to apply for new domain name extensions, such as.jazz,.sport and.food.
This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets (ie.:.coke,.ford,.msoft, etc.). This is really not how the domain name system as a whole should work. We can't have creative new domain possibilities opened up only for a select few rich and famous. I'm not saying that they should be selling custom TLDs to anyone who wants one (although that shouldn't be a problem *), but simply continue to introduce generic TLDs that make sense (as quoted from the TFA).
* if someone registers.coke, how is that any different from someone registering cokewebsite.com? Either is a trademark issue with Coke and neither is for ICANN to deal with.
Slashdot Mirror
I think those are moot points on the basis that you post on Slashdot and claim to have a girlfriend.
OK, I wasn't entirely sure. Thank-you for clarifying.
See: CCR5 Delta 32 and how it relates to a BMT
Additionally, if the HIV is limited to the bone marrow, theoretically, a complete myeloablative transplant should eradicate it, regardless of whether or not the donor possesses the CCR5/32 mutation, no?
This sounds like something that could be used for selective enforcement against someone the authorities dislike, for some reason, but aren't able to lay charges for any real crimes.
People who don't know how to put their transmissions in neutral. Now, where's my prize money?
Technically, yes, but it's not necessarily that simple. In an autologous transplant, where the patient receives their own cells, this is correct.
But, in many cases, the entire purpose of the procedure is to replace the cells with those of a separate donor (allogeneic transplant), because the patient's bone marrow itself is the cause of the condition requiring a transplant in the first place.
Does it matter? We still won gold ;)
/off topic
I'm pretty sure it violates law in pretty well every continent where it's planned to be implemented.
I meant to say "a virtual grid" not "like a grid"
Flash works great using Skyfire on my Pocket PC. The "hover" capability is covered quite nicely by the 5-way control buttons (up/dn/left/right and center), which moves a pointer around like a grid.
Javascript and CSS menus that act on hovering also work just fine this way.
Perhaps it's that Canadian copyright law was wisely crafted with the future in mind.
So, does Apple just automatically void Canadian warranties or do they actually expect no one here to use an iPhone outside from October through March?
You misspelled "collusion".
Y'know, that whole list of 25 is really just a few items expanded into verbosity. You could basically narrow it down to unsanitized user input, unencrypted sensitive data, improper or no data length control, improper or no condition control, improper data storage, improper or no linearity control.
That's a six-item list that should really be common sense for any decent programmer.
The other points of this discussion are determining what potential vulnerabilities are even applicable, the likelihood of an attack occuring and how much the client is actually willing to pay if that likelihood is low.
Good luck actually finding a programmer that will give you code you want at the price you're paying.
Oh, and protection against SQL injection attacks? That shouldn't be part of a contract; that should be implied.
Isn't the best thing to do image it, rebuild it, get it running, restore the image on duplicate test hardware then do forensics?
As humorous as that was, this is exactly the sort of security that actually works: looking people in the eyes, asking questions, being trained to skillfully detect what constitutes an honest response.
The general stupid masses of the western world see the fancy x-ray machines, silvery conveyor tables and shiny rent-a-cop badges and think this somehow translates to better security. But this is not security, this is an illusion of security. This is just put on for show so that your representatives in government (hahahaha... I know) can appear to be doing something about those dern terrrrists.
Security is not a product or a technology. Security, in the case of an airport, is an active process of identifying risks through layers of highly-trained intelligence personel; not high school drop-outs hired to press buttons.
Wait, why does that sound familiar?
*ahem*
"The Green 1.6 Kilometres"
So, exactly, how gullible are the Australian people and/or how stupid are their politicians for anyone to think these two things are different from each other?
"Never" is correct. Remember, when you were young, how your mother told you that, no matter how smart you think you are, there's always someone smarter? No matter how smart an AI developer may be, there's always someone smarter; or someone with a different type of intelligence.
...if this were all down to poor programming done by Indian outsourcers?
Guess it won't work with Windows ;)
This world needs to learn some forgiveness. I understand that the judges and other competitors must have felt cheated -- and rightfully so -- but a lifetime ban is just pure vengeance and no logic. Five or ten-year ban? Sure. Being banned from participating in a prestigious contest for which you have a passion for 20% or more of your life (perhaps 30% of your working life) is still quite a punishment. Banning someone for life is just making an example for example's sake.
Excuse me while I stray a little off-topic here with an extreme analogy: it's like how someone who was caught with half-an-ounce of weed ten years ago can't get certain jobs, can't cross some international borders, etc. It needs to stop. There needs to be an international statute of limitations on how long you can hold a minor offense over someone's head. A life sentence only makes sense when the offender's actions have taken someone else's life.
Case in point: stop giving people life-long punishments for minor offenses just to make examples of them.
Are you people kidding?
24fps is the way to have it. 30fps makes movies look like cheap, crappy home videos.
From TFA:
This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets (ie.: .coke, .ford, .msoft, etc.). This is really not how the domain name system as a whole should work. We can't have creative new domain possibilities opened up only for a select few rich and famous. I'm not saying that they should be selling custom TLDs to anyone who wants one (although that shouldn't be a problem *), but simply continue to introduce generic TLDs that make sense (as quoted from the TFA).
.coke, how is that any different from someone registering cokewebsite.com? Either is a trademark issue with Coke and neither is for ICANN to deal with.
* if someone registers