Sure, add in other predictors like the color of your car as well. But let them collect that data themselves. Why should I have to foot the bill as a tax payer for the gov't to collect data on my drinking habits only to have them hand it over to insurance companies to use it to screw me over?
Yeah, man, I hate when they accurately judge my risk of an accident and prevent me from leeching off of safe drivers. I have a professor who buys a crap load of beer for an informal journal club group, but doesn't drink any himself. Should his premiums go up simply because of some number in a database that makes him look like a heavy drinker? How about we base premiums on a more accurate predictor like the number of drunk driving accidents he's actually been in, rather than extrapolating based on an assumption of an assumption.
But websites using tracking cookies have little way of correlating your particular cookie with who you actually are unless you provide them with that info by choice. At the very most they can track an IP address, which in the era of dynamic IPs and TOR is largely useless unless you have access to ISP records. Here they have a nice little database including name, soc, and home address. Why would they even need to collect anything like that in the first place? Smacks of big brother to me.
I think you need to qualify what "fine" looks like. To me the difference is as obvious as standard vs HD cable channels...it's not annoying to watch a regular channel, but the difference is obvious and when given the choice of watching the same program on either channel, I'd prefer the HD content. Sure, people aren't going to be throwing away their SD-DVDs, but if you have an HDTV which type of DVD format are you going to buy when shopping for a new movie? Why would you buy a disc that doesn't get the most from your HDTV that you paid a substantial amount of money for?
Now it just has to take on the DVD. Good luck. I look forward to dragging my feet. That actually won't be much of a stumbling block. Everyone is going to be switching over to HD televisions in the next few years. In fact, my cable company just announced it is going to require you to buy a special converter box just to watch cable on a non-HD TV. Once all these people switch to HD TVs, they'll realize that standard DVDs are not high-definition and look surprisingly craptacular on an HD TV.
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't mean to suggest that it did, I was using it as an example of bad implementation of an otherwise secure encryption algorithm. I can see how that might be confused based on how it was poorly worded.
Do you Americans realize that you are heading towards a totalitarian regime? I don't know, it seems to make more sense to question people who appear suspicious rather than just randomly searching people like 80 year old grandmas. As long as people are going to try and bring bombs on to airplanes, having to consent to some security measures is going to be a reality. Personally I think this is a *less* intrusive measure, el Al has been doing it for years.
Depends on the implementation. Public/Private key authentication works as long as you don't screw up how it's used (as in WEP). In most cases where a card-reader technology is found to be vulnerable to "sniffing", it's normally because data was unencrypted or weakly encrypted, like using a simple XOR. If it's done properly, there is no reason to assume it's any more insecure than an SSH tunnel.
Yeah, I remember hearing the same thing when I was shopping for wedding rings and came across some made of tungsten carbide. They are supposedly 4x harder than titanium. Interestingly, I just came across this about tungsten while writing this post, so I assume they can cut titanium as well:
"In the event of an emergency, a ring can be removed by a medical professional."
After looking at several online parts suppliers, it does appear that only the re-manufactured parts have core charges while the "new" models do not. So I stand corrected.
I'm not sure how true that is. Every time I've been charged a "core charge", it's on something that has expensive (and reusable) material in it that can generally be made into a re-manufactured/refurbished part. For example the metal in batteries and distributors is inherently valuable, hence they charge you what amounts to a "deposit".
While openBSD may be more secure, remember the Army is about procedures. Leopard has been certified as Unix like AIX and Solaris If that were the case, you'd think that Common Criteria evaluations done by the gov't themselves would be more important than whether something is certified Unix, which is largely irrelevant when it comes to security. Several Linux distributions have EAL4+ certifications while both Leopard and openBSD do not (not that it *really* means they are any less secure). So if procedure was really that big of a deal you'd think they'd go with Linux or at the very least Panther which is EAL certified.
Apple may have unix roots, but openBSD it is not. There is no comparison security-wise, openBSD wins hands down. If you need user-friendliness and usability, then that significantly changes the equation. My guess is they are looking for improved security with the happy clickiness that Macs provide.
That's not really any better metric for comparing security either. OS X has had plenty of security vulnerabilities which have had the potential to be exploited by malware or worms. All that's really required is a remote vulnerability that allows an attacker to upload and execute code. Viruses and trojans are even worse of a means of comparison because most simply rely on tricking a user and don't need any kind of software vulnerability.
This is akin to putting a 5 inch thick steel door on the front of your house and unlocked screen door on the back. Once the "weaker" browser is compromised, generally at the very least it's going to allow user-level execution, so an attacker could modify the settings on the "secure" browser or insert a keystroke logger.
It'd be interesting to see how XP compared. I haven't tried it out yet, but from everything I've heard, Vista is heavily encumbered with DRM and UAC overhead. The current intel mac book pros are running on Core 2 Duo processors, so it's not like there is something particularly magic in a macbook pro. I don't think it's a surprise that an OS will run like shit if you load a several resource intensive background processes on it.
I would have thought that repeated exposure to live virus would increase the individual's immunity to it.
Each person who is actively infected with a virus is essentially an incubator for new genetic variants to form. If a mutation occurs which would allow the virus to be resistant to a particular immunization it doesn't really effect that particular person (other than the fact that they are infected). For them that particular virus particle is just 1 in a trillion and the likelihood of that particular particle spreading to another host is relatively low compared to any other given virus particle. So the likelihood of new resistant strains becoming established in an unimmunized population is relatively low. The issue is that in a mixed population of immunized and unimmunized individuals, each virus-host challenge is an opportunity for a mutant virus to infect an immunized host. With the immunized host, you're setting up a massive selective advantage for that particular virus particle, so if they come into contact with it, it will spread rapidly in that host and will move through population like a wildfire. So it's very likely that a new resistant strain would become the dominant form in the population and the immunization will become worthless.
You're never going to eradicate wild, mutated versions of common disease viruses
Why not? Smallpox went from being a massive plague that decimated populations all over the world to something that only exists in the laboratory now. We don't even immunize people against smallpox anymore. As long as a disease doesn't have some other natural reservoir or is ubiquitous in the environment, then a comprehensive vaccination program has the potential to eradicate a virus.
I'd argue that unvaccinated individuals are valuable because they provide the immune systems of vaccinated individuals with constant low-level exposure to new and mutated versions of disease viruses
There probably is some advantage gained by being exposed (like the hygiene theory), but I'd want to see some kind of evidence that immunized individuals are actively acquiring memory b-cells against wild strains. Plus that advantage would be negligible compared to the risk that a resistant virus could take hold in the immunized population.
Okay, let's pretend I'm afraid of vaccinations and didn't get them. How would that put *you* at risk?
Unvaccinated people act as a reservoir for virus in a population, which allows people who have been immunized to be repeatedly exposed to live virus. This repeated exposure increases the likelihood that a resistant virus strain will develop which would put everyone at risk, including those who have been immunized.
a search on autism and Japan showed that Japan banned the MMR vaccine in 1993 not thermisol.
Yes, but they had already switched all the other vaccines to single dose and monovalent formats, so by switching the MMR they essentially eliminated Thimerosal.
It would be nice if it were true, but if look at the CA Department of Developmental Services (the dept who generated the raw data that your link is based on) has this in their FAQ:
In addition to the considerations noted above, individuals using DDS Quarterly Client
Characteristics Report data for any type of trend analysis should be informed about the
causes of increased CDER population numbers first reflected in the report for the quarter
ending September 2002. Over 4,000 CDER records were added to the CDER database in
July 2002 due to a revision in the information system transmission program and a change
in DDS policy to include the records of CDERs not updated within the required three years
of last report date. For more information, please read the page on "Changes to CDER
Quarterly Reports"
http://www.dds.ca.gov/FactsStats/docs/CDER_QtrlyReport_Consideration_Limitations.pdf
So a huge number of autism cases were suddenly added to the system in 2002 due to record keeping changes. It just happened to work out that the next year (2003) is when the kids who were "thimerosal-free" would then enter the dataset. So if you were looking for a trend, it would look like a drop in the data in 2003 as you come off the artificially high 2002 cohort. So it's an artifact of the data according to the people who are actually collecting it. All the data I've seen shows that the rates haven't changed.
Please stop spreading that FUD. There have been several recent huge studies looking at the link between Thimerosal (mercury) and autism and have found nothing. They were much larger and better designed and would have seen an effect if there was one.
There have been studies that have shown the rise in autism directly linked to the rise in the use of mercury in vaccines in 3rd world countries.
Except that the rate of autism hasn't changed at all in countries like Japan where the use of Thimerosal has been banned since 1993.
One of the real dangers about people not getting their children immunized is that it allows the virus to remain in the population and repeatedly exposes immunized individuals to live virus which increases the likelihood of a resistant strain developing. So not only are they endangering their own children, but everyone else as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, add in other predictors like the color of your car as well. But let them collect that data themselves. Why should I have to foot the bill as a tax payer for the gov't to collect data on my drinking habits only to have them hand it over to insurance companies to use it to screw me over?
But websites using tracking cookies have little way of correlating your particular cookie with who you actually are unless you provide them with that info by choice. At the very most they can track an IP address, which in the era of dynamic IPs and TOR is largely useless unless you have access to ISP records. Here they have a nice little database including name, soc, and home address. Why would they even need to collect anything like that in the first place? Smacks of big brother to me.
I've watched Blue Planet in both formats and the standard DVD quality was disappointingly poor when compared to the HD-DVD version.
I think you need to qualify what "fine" looks like. To me the difference is as obvious as standard vs HD cable channels...it's not annoying to watch a regular channel, but the difference is obvious and when given the choice of watching the same program on either channel, I'd prefer the HD content. Sure, people aren't going to be throwing away their SD-DVDs, but if you have an HDTV which type of DVD format are you going to buy when shopping for a new movie? Why would you buy a disc that doesn't get the most from your HDTV that you paid a substantial amount of money for?
Thanks for clarifying that. I didn't mean to suggest that it did, I was using it as an example of bad implementation of an otherwise secure encryption algorithm. I can see how that might be confused based on how it was poorly worded.
Depends on the implementation. Public/Private key authentication works as long as you don't screw up how it's used (as in WEP). In most cases where a card-reader technology is found to be vulnerable to "sniffing", it's normally because data was unencrypted or weakly encrypted, like using a simple XOR. If it's done properly, there is no reason to assume it's any more insecure than an SSH tunnel.
After looking at several online parts suppliers, it does appear that only the re-manufactured parts have core charges while the "new" models do not. So I stand corrected.
I'm not sure how true that is. Every time I've been charged a "core charge", it's on something that has expensive (and reusable) material in it that can generally be made into a re-manufactured/refurbished part. For example the metal in batteries and distributors is inherently valuable, hence they charge you what amounts to a "deposit".
Apple may have unix roots, but openBSD it is not. There is no comparison security-wise, openBSD wins hands down. If you need user-friendliness and usability, then that significantly changes the equation. My guess is they are looking for improved security with the happy clickiness that Macs provide.
That's not really any better metric for comparing security either. OS X has had plenty of security vulnerabilities which have had the potential to be exploited by malware or worms. All that's really required is a remote vulnerability that allows an attacker to upload and execute code. Viruses and trojans are even worse of a means of comparison because most simply rely on tricking a user and don't need any kind of software vulnerability.
This is akin to putting a 5 inch thick steel door on the front of your house and unlocked screen door on the back. Once the "weaker" browser is compromised, generally at the very least it's going to allow user-level execution, so an attacker could modify the settings on the "secure" browser or insert a keystroke logger.
It'd be interesting to see how XP compared. I haven't tried it out yet, but from everything I've heard, Vista is heavily encumbered with DRM and UAC overhead. The current intel mac book pros are running on Core 2 Duo processors, so it's not like there is something particularly magic in a macbook pro. I don't think it's a surprise that an OS will run like shit if you load a several resource intensive background processes on it.
Yeah, there is a thread on the front page today about trademarking "Jesus" as well.
God, I can't tell you how long I've been waiting to use that
I would have thought that repeated exposure to live virus would increase the individual's immunity to it.
Each person who is actively infected with a virus is essentially an incubator for new genetic variants to form. If a mutation occurs which would allow the virus to be resistant to a particular immunization it doesn't really effect that particular person (other than the fact that they are infected). For them that particular virus particle is just 1 in a trillion and the likelihood of that particular particle spreading to another host is relatively low compared to any other given virus particle. So the likelihood of new resistant strains becoming established in an unimmunized population is relatively low. The issue is that in a mixed population of immunized and unimmunized individuals, each virus-host challenge is an opportunity for a mutant virus to infect an immunized host. With the immunized host, you're setting up a massive selective advantage for that particular virus particle, so if they come into contact with it, it will spread rapidly in that host and will move through population like a wildfire. So it's very likely that a new resistant strain would become the dominant form in the population and the immunization will become worthless.
You're never going to eradicate wild, mutated versions of common disease viruses
Why not? Smallpox went from being a massive plague that decimated populations all over the world to something that only exists in the laboratory now. We don't even immunize people against smallpox anymore. As long as a disease doesn't have some other natural reservoir or is ubiquitous in the environment, then a comprehensive vaccination program has the potential to eradicate a virus.
I'd argue that unvaccinated individuals are valuable because they provide the immune systems of vaccinated individuals with constant low-level exposure to new and mutated versions of disease viruses
There probably is some advantage gained by being exposed (like the hygiene theory), but I'd want to see some kind of evidence that immunized individuals are actively acquiring memory b-cells against wild strains. Plus that advantage would be negligible compared to the risk that a resistant virus could take hold in the immunized population.
Okay, let's pretend I'm afraid of vaccinations and didn't get them. How would that put *you* at risk?
Unvaccinated people act as a reservoir for virus in a population, which allows people who have been immunized to be repeatedly exposed to live virus. This repeated exposure increases the likelihood that a resistant virus strain will develop which would put everyone at risk, including those who have been immunized.
It would be nice if it were true, but if look at the CA Department of Developmental Services (the dept who generated the raw data that your link is based on) has this in their FAQ: So a huge number of autism cases were suddenly added to the system in 2002 due to record keeping changes. It just happened to work out that the next year (2003) is when the kids who were "thimerosal-free" would then enter the dataset. So if you were looking for a trend, it would look like a drop in the data in 2003 as you come off the artificially high 2002 cohort. So it's an artifact of the data according to the people who are actually collecting it. All the data I've seen shows that the rates haven't changed.
Except that the rate of autism hasn't changed at all in countries like Japan where the use of Thimerosal has been banned since 1993.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7076/
One of the real dangers about people not getting their children immunized is that it allows the virus to remain in the population and repeatedly exposes immunized individuals to live virus which increases the likelihood of a resistant strain developing. So not only are they endangering their own children, but everyone else as well.