Yes, this article is much more lame than it first seemed. Sniffing keystrokes is most useful for stealing passwords. But these guys actually have a horrible accuracy and need to use dictionary based prediction to guess words, which won't work for any reasonable passwords.
I'm sure these intelligent beings would treat humans just as ethically as we treat other less intelligent animals.
Get ready for life on a factory farm or in a research lab cage.
E=mc^2 isn't exactly "remedial science". Sure many people have heard of that equation and could tell you what the letters stand for...but that's more from a remedial history standpoint than any sort of scientific understanding of the equation, its uses, or its implications. 13 yr olds definitely don't need this equation.
That's not exactly true. There's a huge demand for inline network encryption and cross domain filtering devices that DO allow Secret/Top Secret data to go out on insecure public networks.
For example, products like this
That logic makes no sense. You're saying wind/solar/hydro are no good because some people don't live in a windy, sunny, wet place. Well, far more people don't live next to a uranium mine. Have no fear, we have wires!
PV solar cells only work during sunny days, but note that Google is funding thermal solar generation. Believe it or not solar thermal plants can generate electricity at night. There's already a large plant in the CA desert that uses mirrors to concentrate heat on a tank of liquid sodium (chosen because of its immense capacity to store heat). Then the heat from the sodium is transferred to create steam and drive turbines. This plant generates electricity long after the sun goes down.
Taxpayers paid for the research and development, taxpayers insure against any sort of nuclear accident, taxpayers pay for the waste storage dump, taxpayers pay for security to keep this out of terrorist hands, so it seems quite logical that private industry should keep the profits from selling these things. What a great deal! I'm always amazed how libertarian-leaning people can be such fanboys for nuclear power. Nuclear power requires vastly more big government involvement at every step of the way than any other form of power.
The most interesting thing here is that governments are devoting terrorism resources to go after nonviolent people. Unlike real terrorists or religious fundamentalists, animal rights activists have never killed or seriously injured anyone, and in fact take great care to make sure they don't.
One day Google will get smart and use its technology to "please everyone". They can customize their logo depending on who's viewing it. So a Republican will see a Flag/SUV/gun montage, while a Democrat sees a peace sign and wind turbine. The flag waving patriotic stuff can be customized so viewers in France see wine and cheese, viewers in N. Korea see Kim Jong Il.
If we know primates are very similar to humans, when will we stop locking them in captivity and poking and prodding them for our narrow gains? I'm saddened that UCLA does useless research on primates.
That's the golden question. As you might imagine, modeling a complex human disease like this in a mouse is a terribly coarse approximation. We can't even diagnose schizophrenia in a human without talking to them. This is of course why we constantly read about scientists finding cures for everything from cancer to depression in mice, and then nothing ever comes of it to address human issues. Human cures are almost always exclusively found from human studies. Animal studies are performed because they are easy, not because they are useful.
Going solar and using peak pricing make perfect sense. Solar peak output follows demand perfectly. Most home solar installations will generate far more at peak times than is used. At noon on a hot day, I'm at work and my house is using nearly zero power. But the solar panels are cranking out 3kW, which is running the meter backwards at PEAK prices. The only time you're drawing much from the grid would be night, when electricity is cheap.
The only problem with the current situation is that the millions of the non-solar homes are being allowed to buy electricity at flat subsidized prices. Everyone should pay peak and off-peak rates.
Another alternative that is easily envisioned is using a time-varying energy source (wind/solar) to generate electricity for producing hydrogen via electrolysis. Then the hydrogen is stored and can be used at any time in fuel cells. Sure there is some loss, but it's 100% clean and on-demand power.
CF bulbs vary wildly in performance. Some are excellent, warm light, with no delay. I use them throughout my house and they are unnoticeable. I have had some terrible ones in the past.
The trick is to buy several types and try them out. Then go buy more of the good ones and relegate the bad ones to little used places, or the trash.
Specific technology mandates or bans are a bad idea. However, rules requiring a certain efficiency of lighting would make sense. This could effectively ban incandescents and lead to replacement with CFL, but without getting unnecessarily stuck on a particular technology. For example, LED bulbs will probably soon be better than CFL. And of course we must believe in the American corporate ability to manufacture some sort of Hummer of CF bulbs that still manages to use 1 megawatt per room, while complying with a technology mandate.
Animals are being exploited because we are humans and we exploit resources to live. If we need to exploit resources to live in luxury, so be it. You seem confused. Humans are animals. There is no dividing line with homo sapiens on one side and all other species on the other. A dog is far more similar to a human than a dog is to a snake. So talking of "humans vs. animals" is really meaningless.
Nearly all species of adult mammals are individual sentient beings with a permanent psychoactive state. Even minor details in their brain structures and evolutionary history are shared with humans. Mammals are not "resources" any more than human slaves are "resources", i.e., humans do currently treat other species as resources, but only as part of a violent tradition rooted in ignorance that will one day be abolished.
You've got it backwards. It's the researchers that are making the assertion that the experimental results are so valuable that they justify harming unwilling individuals.
So logically, the researchers should volunteer their children for the experiments.
PETA's position would probably be that using cats isn't a necessity. Regardless of how the cat experiment goes, human experiments that follow will still be necessary and not particularly safer.
I believe it's a far more "warped logic" that would have you believe that it's morally acceptable to sacrifice an unwilling individual for the benefit of others (or even the slim potential of marginal benefit, as most animal research produces no tangible benefits) as long as the name of the species is not homo sapiens.
Science provides no reason to draw such a magical distinction between humans and other species. Only religious mythology makes such a distinction.
If you accept a general utilitarian position that it's ok to trade one man to save ten men, then certainly the most ethical choice would be less animal experiments and more human experiments, since the results of human experiments are vastly more useful.
Or you could just go to the roof of a residential high rise, then fire off a round and flee. 30 minutes later, a "precision air strike" will take out 100 innocent civilians.
Slashdot Mirror
Couldn't we say the same about anyone reading / commenting on slashdot this morning?
Yes, this article is much more lame than it first seemed. Sniffing keystrokes is most useful for stealing passwords. But these guys actually have a horrible accuracy and need to use dictionary based prediction to guess words, which won't work for any reasonable passwords.
Don't worry, since it's so easy, Google is donating its engineering resources to implement IPv6 for any company that wants it.
I'm sure these intelligent beings would treat humans just as ethically as we treat other less intelligent animals. Get ready for life on a factory farm or in a research lab cage.
E=mc^2 isn't exactly "remedial science". Sure many people have heard of that equation and could tell you what the letters stand for...but that's more from a remedial history standpoint than any sort of scientific understanding of the equation, its uses, or its implications. 13 yr olds definitely don't need this equation.
For those who don't have time to read all the code...
You're right. Maybe some iPhone customers are willing to pay $50 for a form letter, but not me.
That's not exactly true. There's a huge demand for inline network encryption and cross domain filtering devices that DO allow Secret/Top Secret data to go out on insecure public networks. For example, products like this
That logic makes no sense. You're saying wind/solar/hydro are no good because some people don't live in a windy, sunny, wet place. Well, far more people don't live next to a uranium mine. Have no fear, we have wires!
PV solar cells only work during sunny days, but note that Google is funding thermal solar generation. Believe it or not solar thermal plants can generate electricity at night. There's already a large plant in the CA desert that uses mirrors to concentrate heat on a tank of liquid sodium (chosen because of its immense capacity to store heat). Then the heat from the sodium is transferred to create steam and drive turbines. This plant generates electricity long after the sun goes down.
Taxpayers paid for the research and development, taxpayers insure against any sort of nuclear accident, taxpayers pay for the waste storage dump, taxpayers pay for security to keep this out of terrorist hands, so it seems quite logical that private industry should keep the profits from selling these things. What a great deal! I'm always amazed how libertarian-leaning people can be such fanboys for nuclear power. Nuclear power requires vastly more big government involvement at every step of the way than any other form of power.
The most interesting thing here is that governments are devoting terrorism resources to go after nonviolent people. Unlike real terrorists or religious fundamentalists, animal rights activists have never killed or seriously injured anyone, and in fact take great care to make sure they don't.
One day Google will get smart and use its technology to "please everyone". They can customize their logo depending on who's viewing it. So a Republican will see a Flag/SUV/gun montage, while a Democrat sees a peace sign and wind turbine. The flag waving patriotic stuff can be customized so viewers in France see wine and cheese, viewers in N. Korea see Kim Jong Il.
If we know primates are very similar to humans, when will we stop locking them in captivity and poking and prodding them for our narrow gains? I'm saddened that UCLA does useless research on primates.
That's the golden question. As you might imagine, modeling a complex human disease like this in a mouse is a terribly coarse approximation. We can't even diagnose schizophrenia in a human without talking to them. This is of course why we constantly read about scientists finding cures for everything from cancer to depression in mice, and then nothing ever comes of it to address human issues. Human cures are almost always exclusively found from human studies. Animal studies are performed because they are easy, not because they are useful.
Going solar and using peak pricing make perfect sense. Solar peak output follows demand perfectly. Most home solar installations will generate far more at peak times than is used. At noon on a hot day, I'm at work and my house is using nearly zero power. But the solar panels are cranking out 3kW, which is running the meter backwards at PEAK prices. The only time you're drawing much from the grid would be night, when electricity is cheap. The only problem with the current situation is that the millions of the non-solar homes are being allowed to buy electricity at flat subsidized prices. Everyone should pay peak and off-peak rates.
Another alternative that is easily envisioned is using a time-varying energy source (wind/solar) to generate electricity for producing hydrogen via electrolysis. Then the hydrogen is stored and can be used at any time in fuel cells. Sure there is some loss, but it's 100% clean and on-demand power.
There's a difference between something you "object to" and something explicitly illegal. Sounds like Amazon is being moronic to me. Way to go HSUS.
CF bulbs vary wildly in performance. Some are excellent, warm light, with no delay. I use them throughout my house and they are unnoticeable. I have had some terrible ones in the past. The trick is to buy several types and try them out. Then go buy more of the good ones and relegate the bad ones to little used places, or the trash.
Specific technology mandates or bans are a bad idea. However, rules requiring a certain efficiency of lighting would make sense. This could effectively ban incandescents and lead to replacement with CFL, but without getting unnecessarily stuck on a particular technology. For example, LED bulbs will probably soon be better than CFL. And of course we must believe in the American corporate ability to manufacture some sort of Hummer of CF bulbs that still manages to use 1 megawatt per room, while complying with a technology mandate.
Nearly all species of adult mammals are individual sentient beings with a permanent psychoactive state. Even minor details in their brain structures and evolutionary history are shared with humans. Mammals are not "resources" any more than human slaves are "resources", i.e., humans do currently treat other species as resources, but only as part of a violent tradition rooted in ignorance that will one day be abolished.
You've got it backwards. It's the researchers that are making the assertion that the experimental results are so valuable that they justify harming unwilling individuals. So logically, the researchers should volunteer their children for the experiments. PETA's position would probably be that using cats isn't a necessity. Regardless of how the cat experiment goes, human experiments that follow will still be necessary and not particularly safer.
I believe it's a far more "warped logic" that would have you believe that it's morally acceptable to sacrifice an unwilling individual for the benefit of others (or even the slim potential of marginal benefit, as most animal research produces no tangible benefits) as long as the name of the species is not homo sapiens. Science provides no reason to draw such a magical distinction between humans and other species. Only religious mythology makes such a distinction. If you accept a general utilitarian position that it's ok to trade one man to save ten men, then certainly the most ethical choice would be less animal experiments and more human experiments, since the results of human experiments are vastly more useful.
The Founders intended for rich land owning whiteboys to own slaves while women did the dishes.
Or you could just go to the roof of a residential high rise, then fire off a round and flee. 30 minutes later, a "precision air strike" will take out 100 innocent civilians.