Maybe they should have designed these features into the cup rather than something that drops in the alcohol. THe cup can probably do more sensory related stuff.
Got any proof that suicide is uniquely human? Lots of animals do commit suicide, what's iffy is the amount of intention. For example, whales beach themselves sometimes over and over even after being rescued -- is it intentional or is it because of a navigation issue? Bees commit suicide to protect the hive -- do they do it unknowingly? I think biologically they would have to "know" on some level, or else they wouldn't be sparing enough about it. Many mammals risk their lives to protect their young -- it can be regarded as suicidal behavior.
I realize the thing is 25 light years away, but surely a large number of people can be tricked into thinking we'll be affected by this somehow. I mean what if there is debris hurtling towards us at near the speed of light the probability of impact is may well be in the one in a googolplexibazillion range but it's still non zero. How many people can understand large numbers? Not many. I say a religion can be formed and money can be made off this.
I would.. F it.. Too many people are willfully or negligently filing patents on stuff they didn't invent or are obvious increments to existing technology. There has to be something to discourage it.
The biggest mistake made in design of the web protocol was starting out with a non encrypted protocol http. In 20/20 hindsight it should have always been https and nothing else. I look for the day when browser makers disable http.
Carnegie didn't run a company that depends on innovation (yes, he needed and adopted the Bessemer process, but he licensed that -- as many were doing). If a company itself depends on producing R&D.. it needs capital -- lots of it, and the only way to raise that capital is with profitable companies. And the only way to have profitable R&D companies -- it seems.. at least today.. is by having prick CEOs. It's very easy to waste money in R&D. Sun Microsystems used to have non-prick CEOs for a short period.. when they open sourced Solaris and a lot of their products.. the reward was loss of profits followed by collapse in company share prices.
Anyway, I actually think Larry and Sergey are not really pricks. I think they could be worse, and are fundamentally are trying to do the right thing.
So the hacker's modus operandi is to frame other people? Why do I think that we'll see the hacker frame somebody and then turn that person in for the reward. The reward that the hacker himself created. Twisted. But then so is Orange Juice.
Also want to point out that the Bill of rights/constitution does NOT grant us our most important rights.. it merely respects and acknowledges them. Our rights (and those of all humans) come from the Creator/nature. If you read certain amendments you can tell from the wording that the right is something pre-existing and the document is only forbidding its infringement. For example, -- where is the right to bear arms granted? It's not. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" It doesn't grant us that right.. because we already have it -- from God. It's not something you are provided with. Or amendment 4 "right of the people to be secure [..] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".. again.. we see that the right is not granted.. merely respected. Amendment 7: "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Amendment 8 "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted".. we can see that the government is forbidden and neutered from inflicting those things.. it's not granting the right.. it's preventing government from doing something it shouldn't and it's respecting rights we all have.
No it's a war crime, crime against humanity etc,. It's a matter of can you recognize that. For example, the declaration of Independence would have no validity by British law.. yet it is valid by innate human rights granted by God. In the same way, all human beings have a right to fair trials and not to be tortured. It's a matter of are you willing to recognize that right. And the argument that terrorists dont have the right to a fair trial is just silly. How do you know if someone is a terrorist without a trial? What if they were they were setup by a neighbor or forced onto the battlefield because of threats to their family etc. ? Everyone deserves a reasonable chance to explain their story and be released if it can be verified. Also, if you are going to hold prisoners without certainty of their guilt/innocence you should at least not torture them.
Targeting a single DNA segment is unlikely to work in most cases if the cancer has reached stage IV. The problem is the mutation rate in most cancers especially if the oncogene wasn't specifically inherited is scary high ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19931353 ).. cancers contain cells with not just SNP mutations but all kinds of copy variants.. frame shifts etc.. To get a high confidence of eradicating the tumor.. honestly after looking at the myriad of different mutations and amount of cell to cell variation in a tumor.. my calculation is (and I hope I am off by an order of magnitude) you would need to target about ~30 different areas with simultaneous combination therapy. And then ur going to need mad FDA rule changes to allow small scale rapid clinical trial on a primate to test for safety issues.
Hold up, I know that AIDS can result in cancer.. but in his case did he really die of AIDS or did he die of a bone marrow cancer that originated regardless of his HIV infection? I mean it's possible that the cancer progressed due to a low immune cell count.. but if he was on his meds that shouldn't have happened.. unless of course he found out he had HIV after or around the time he got cancer due to a low T-cell count. Or, his HIV was resistant to all drugs.. which is not unheard of but rare.
You realize that it costs insurance companies about half a million dollars to treat a cancer patient? And most of that money goes to all kinds of different companies many of them struggling on low margins making an assortment of drugs, medical services, and other stuff. Now let's say a company comes out with a cure for cancer.. They can charge $100,000 for it as pure profit.. Insurance companies would gladly pay. 10 million people a year get cancer.. That means the profit will be an absolutely insane $1 trillion dollars a year.
Or forget that.. Steve jobs had cancer and died of it.. All a company that had the cure had to do was call him up and charge him $5 billion cash plus 50% ownership of Apple for the cure.
When have you been? Retroviral medications are dirt cheap now. Treating HIV nowadays is a single daily pill of Atripla (or Indian generics if you are poor).
You changed the real situation which is mild stress situation versus major stress situation into a comparison of major stress situation vs major stress situation. Therefore your analogy fails.
I read some of his books when I was a kid. I wondered how the hell he wrote so many books. I thought he was much older than 89 when I saw him talking online a few years ago... Anyway I got disappointed when I found out he was a BNP supporter - an openly racist political party until recently when they claimed to be culturalist not racist (at the time he joined them they were openly racist and didn't allow minority members - a few years ago the British govt forced them to allow minorities). Also, he has made statements anti gay and anti-women comments. I would like to write that off as old age senility, but then he made those comments and joined BNP in his 70s.
Just put the bread out in the hot sun.. it will dry out. Then 60 days later SLOWLY steam use a moderate steam setting for a 2 hours (not longer).. it'll be like new.
OK I haven't tried it and just came up with the idea, but it sounds like it would work. F it.
A person (err, corporation) has the right to an impartial jury (see sixth amendment). If this guy was partial to patent holders, it means Samsung's right to a fair trial was infringed.
You misunderstand. Pinhedd is saying that with an unencrypted signal.. unlike a digital encrypted signal.. if the signal is weak and lossy you can still see usable information.. it may have image noise.. but you'll be able to make out rough outlines. But if the signal is encrypted.. with most forms of encryption you either get a perfect imagery or nothing. Either you will see a clear image or random total image noise. If you make the signal more resilient to noise, the weaker the encryption quality. This also means you lose out on range too since you need a clear strong signal.
Patents last way too long 20 years from the filing date is what it says.. but if the patent office takes long to approve it then you get to tack on that time too. There are still patents on HDTV that were filed in the 1990s that have not even been issued yet! When they get issued they will get about 18 or 19 years from the issue date. Companies deliberately delay the approval of their patents to take advantage of this loophole. The loophole was made for pharmaceuticals (FDA approval can take a decade), but tech companies are taking advantage of it too. Couple that with the fact that you can now patent stuff that other people invented before you thanks to the change from FI to FITF.. the patent system is a joke!
Patents last way too long 20 years from the filing date is what it says.. but if the patent office takes long to approve it then you get to tack on that time too. There are still patents on HDTV that were filed in the 1990s that have not even been issued yet! When they get issued they will get about 18 or 19 years from the issue date. Companies deliberately delay the approval of their patents to take advantage of this loophole. The loophole was made for pharmaceuticals (FDA approval can take a decade), but tech companies are taking advantage of it too. Couple that with the fact that you can now patent stuff that other people invented before you thanks to the change from FI to FITF.. the patent system is a joke
I will address the serial killer angle since that is easier to expand.. no they are not insane. They know what they are doing is wrong, they even believe there will be consequences.. they just don't care. Its not just serial killers/child molesters etc. by the way, plenty of common criminals think that way too. I'd venture to guess up to 10% of violent criminals or even drug addicts think this way.
Like a lot of people who smoke cigarettes knowing they might get cancer... or the people who like the thrill of exposing themselves to HIV (google bug chasers) they don't care about the consequence they only care about the immediate benefit. Let me stress that, it's not that they think they will escape the consequence.. they know the consequence is coming but simply don't care. Like I said, maybe they are selfish even towards their "future self" as opposed to someone who is unconcerned/selfless about their current self and cares about their future self (a religious nut who beats himself for example).
So, if we can be clearly intrinsically selfish or selfless towards our own selves, it is surely possible to be intrinsically selfless towards others.
Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does. For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit. Yet people do it. Even atheists do it.
You are assuming that people are motivated by the same things as you. There are many serial killers by the way, who believe in God and "know" they are going to suffer in hell, but they still keep their behavior.. maybe it's a selfishness against their future self. But anyway I know for a fact there are people who believe they are going to hell but don't care.
Well yes but my point is that nobody is at that point. Happiness comes about from satisfaction and being content, why get satisfaction and feel content if you have failed in helping others?
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they should have designed these features into the cup rather than something that drops in the alcohol. THe cup can probably do more sensory related stuff.
Got any proof that suicide is uniquely human? Lots of animals do commit suicide, what's iffy is the amount of intention. For example, whales beach themselves sometimes over and over even after being rescued -- is it intentional or is it because of a navigation issue? Bees commit suicide to protect the hive -- do they do it unknowingly? I think biologically they would have to "know" on some level, or else they wouldn't be sparing enough about it. Many mammals risk their lives to protect their young -- it can be regarded as suicidal behavior.
I realize the thing is 25 light years away, but surely a large number of people can be tricked into thinking we'll be affected by this somehow. I mean what if there is debris hurtling towards us at near the speed of light the probability of impact is may well be in the one in a googolplexibazillion range but it's still non zero. How many people can understand large numbers? Not many. I say a religion can be formed and money can be made off this.
Really as opposed to what system? Socialism where nobody has any incentive to do anything?
I would .. F it .. Too many people are willfully or negligently filing patents on stuff they didn't invent or are obvious increments to existing technology. There has to be something to discourage it.
The biggest mistake made in design of the web protocol was starting out with a non encrypted protocol http. In 20/20 hindsight it should have always been https and nothing else. I look for the day when browser makers disable http.
Carnegie didn't run a company that depends on innovation (yes, he needed and adopted the Bessemer process, but he licensed that -- as many were doing). If a company itself depends on producing R&D .. it needs capital -- lots of it, and the only way to raise that capital is with profitable companies. And the only way to have profitable R&D companies -- it seems .. at least today .. is by having prick CEOs. It's very easy to waste money in R&D. Sun Microsystems used to have non-prick CEOs for a short period .. when they open sourced Solaris and a lot of their products .. the reward was loss of profits followed by collapse in company share prices.
Anyway, I actually think Larry and Sergey are not really pricks. I think they could be worse, and are fundamentally are trying to do the right thing.
So the hacker's modus operandi is to frame other people? Why do I think that we'll see the hacker frame somebody and then turn that person in for the reward. The reward that the hacker himself created. Twisted. But then so is Orange Juice.
Also want to point out that the Bill of rights/constitution does NOT grant us our most important rights .. it merely respects and acknowledges them. Our rights (and those of all humans) come from the Creator/nature. If you read certain amendments you can tell from the wording that the right is something pre-existing and the document is only forbidding its infringement. For example, -- where is the right to bear arms granted? It's not. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" It doesn't grant us that right .. because we already have it -- from God. It's not something you are provided with. Or amendment 4 "right of the people to be secure [..] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" .. again .. we see that the right is not granted .. merely respected. Amendment 7: "the right of trial by jury shall be preserved". Amendment 8 "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" .. we can see that the government is forbidden and neutered from inflicting those things .. it's not granting the right .. it's preventing government from doing something it shouldn't and it's respecting rights we all have.
No it's a war crime, crime against humanity etc,. It's a matter of can you recognize that. For example, the declaration of Independence would have no validity by British law .. yet it is valid by innate human rights granted by God. In the same way, all human beings have a right to fair trials and not to be tortured. It's a matter of are you willing to recognize that right. And the argument that terrorists dont have the right to a fair trial is just silly. How do you know if someone is a terrorist without a trial? What if they were they were setup by a neighbor or forced onto the battlefield because of threats to their family etc. ? Everyone deserves a reasonable chance to explain their story and be released if it can be verified. Also, if you are going to hold prisoners without certainty of their guilt/innocence you should at least not torture them.
Targeting a single DNA segment is unlikely to work in most cases if the cancer has reached stage IV. The problem is the mutation rate in most cancers especially if the oncogene wasn't specifically inherited is scary high ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19931353 ) .. cancers contain cells with not just SNP mutations but all kinds of copy variants .. frame shifts etc.. To get a high confidence of eradicating the tumor .. honestly after looking at the myriad of different mutations and amount of cell to cell variation in a tumor .. my calculation is (and I hope I am off by an order of magnitude) you would need to target about ~30 different areas with simultaneous combination therapy. And then ur going to need mad FDA rule changes to allow small scale rapid clinical trial on a primate to test for safety issues.
Hold up, I know that AIDS can result in cancer .. but in his case did he really die of AIDS or did he die of a bone marrow cancer that originated regardless of his HIV infection? I mean it's possible that the cancer progressed due to a low immune cell count .. but if he was on his meds that shouldn't have happened .. unless of course he found out he had HIV after or around the time he got cancer due to a low T-cell count. Or, his HIV was resistant to all drugs .. which is not unheard of but rare.
You realize that it costs insurance companies about half a million dollars to treat a cancer patient? And most of that money goes to all kinds of different companies many of them struggling on low margins making an assortment of drugs, medical services, and other stuff. Now let's say a company comes out with a cure for cancer .. They can charge $100,000 for it as pure profit .. Insurance companies would gladly pay. 10 million people a year get cancer .. That means the profit will be an absolutely insane $1 trillion dollars a year.
Or forget that .. Steve jobs had cancer and died of it .. All a company that had the cure had to do was call him up and charge him $5 billion cash plus 50% ownership of Apple for the cure.
When have you been? Retroviral medications are dirt cheap now. Treating HIV nowadays is a single daily pill of Atripla (or Indian generics if you are poor).
It is easier to treat than hypertension.
It's disgusting that they would put him in jail over this.
He should be getting an award for founding The Pirate Bay, not punishment.
You changed the real situation which is mild stress situation versus major stress situation into a comparison of major stress situation vs major stress situation. Therefore your analogy fails.
--
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
I read some of his books when I was a kid. I wondered how the hell he wrote so many books. I thought he was much older than 89 when I saw him talking online a few years ago ... Anyway I got disappointed when I found out he was a BNP supporter - an openly racist political party until recently when they claimed to be culturalist not racist (at the time he joined them they were openly racist and didn't allow minority members - a few years ago the British govt forced them to allow minorities). Also, he has made statements anti gay and anti-women comments. I would like to write that off as old age senility, but then he made those comments and joined BNP in his 70s.
Just put the bread out in the hot sun .. it will dry out. Then 60 days later SLOWLY steam use a moderate steam setting for a 2 hours (not longer) .. it'll be like new.
OK I haven't tried it and just came up with the idea, but it sounds like it would work. F it.
A person (err, corporation) has the right to an impartial jury (see sixth amendment). If this guy was partial to patent holders, it means Samsung's right to a fair trial was infringed.
You misunderstand. Pinhedd is saying that with an unencrypted signal .. unlike a digital encrypted signal .. if the signal is weak and lossy you can still see usable information.. it may have image noise .. but you'll be able to make out rough outlines. But if the signal is encrypted .. with most forms of encryption you either get a perfect imagery or nothing. Either you will see a clear image or random total image noise. If you make the signal more resilient to noise, the weaker the encryption quality. This also means you lose out on range too since you need a clear strong signal.
We need better ways to encrypt.
Patents last way too long 20 years from the filing date is what it says .. but if the patent office takes long to approve it then you get to tack on that time too. There are still patents on HDTV that were filed in the 1990s that have not even been issued yet! When they get issued they will get about 18 or 19 years from the issue date. .. the patent system is a joke!
Companies deliberately delay the approval of their patents to take advantage of this loophole. The loophole was made for pharmaceuticals (FDA approval can take a decade), but tech companies are taking advantage of it too. Couple that with the fact that you can now patent stuff that other people invented before you thanks to the change from FI to FITF
Patents last way too long 20 years from the filing date is what it says .. but if the patent office takes long to approve it then you get to tack on that time too. There are still patents on HDTV that were filed in the 1990s that have not even been issued yet! When they get issued they will get about 18 or 19 years from the issue date. .. the patent system is a joke
Companies deliberately delay the approval of their patents to take advantage of this loophole. The loophole was made for pharmaceuticals (FDA approval can take a decade), but tech companies are taking advantage of it too. Couple that with the fact that you can now patent stuff that other people invented before you thanks to the change from FI to FITF
I will address the serial killer angle since that is easier to expand .. no they are not insane. They know what they are doing is wrong, they even believe there will be consequences .. they just don't care. Its not just serial killers/child molesters etc. by the way, plenty of common criminals think that way too. I'd venture to guess up to 10% of violent criminals or even drug addicts think this way.
Like a lot of people who smoke cigarettes knowing they might get cancer ... or the people who like the thrill of exposing themselves to HIV (google bug chasers) they don't care about the consequence they only care about the immediate benefit. Let me stress that, it's not that they think they will escape the consequence .. they know the consequence is coming but simply don't care. Like I said, maybe they are selfish even towards their "future self" as opposed to someone who is unconcerned/selfless about their current self and cares about their future self (a religious nut who beats himself for example).
So, if we can be clearly intrinsically selfish or selfless towards our own selves, it is surely possible to be intrinsically selfless towards others.
Helping others can in fact make you feel miserable and often does. For example try helping refugees who have been raped and been through hell. Trust me you will feel miserable. Or go to a camp where there are thousands of people and you can hardly make a difference. You will feel like shit. Yet people do it. Even atheists do it.
You are assuming that people are motivated by the same things as you. There are many serial killers by the way, who believe in God and "know" they are going to suffer in hell, but they still keep their behavior .. maybe it's a selfishness against their future self. But anyway I know for a fact there are people who believe they are going to hell but don't care.
Well yes but my point is that nobody is at that point. Happiness comes about from satisfaction and being content, why get satisfaction and feel content if you have failed in helping others?
16 Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" 17 "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments." 18 "Which ones?" the man inquired. Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.' " 20 "All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?" 21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." 22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth. 23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."