Doh. It's obvious. You know the upper bound of some future hybrid will at least be human (if not higher). And for others they won't be.

So why'd you need to create the problem first before working out the solution? And if you figure out there is no good solution to a theoretical problem why work towards making the theoretical problem a real problem? What's the benefit to the world that would make it worth it? So you can get a grant? Or because the benefit to everyone would be worth it?

That's a really stupid excuse to do stuff. Yes, if you don't jump off a cliff now, someone else may eventually do so. But if you don't do it now, it means it's more likely to happen later than earlier. And that buys the rest of us some time. There have been inventions and discoveries that were lost and took a long time to be reinvented/rediscovered again - so it's not like the "someone else will" is necessarily soon.

As for who is this "we", it's everyone. The more people who start thinking about whether it is really a good idea to do something from a long term and "big picture" perspective, the more likely things will be better for us. And that's why I posted about it.

And how'd that make a difference? I was talking about those who are still stuck on Windows XP whoever they are.

It should be obvious that a Windows XP compatible OS is not for the sort who keep up with Microsoft's latest stuff.

But on a related topic I think we really should start seriously considering whether we should postpone certain paths of research instead of just doing things because we can. Too often we are doing things just because the technology is ready. Whether society and laws are ready, doesn't even get a consideration.

For example: the creation of viable human-animal[1] hybrids may be possible in the future. Same goes for certain mixtures of human, cyborg, animals, AIs etc. But if we are not ready to decide whether to give such entities (and which entities) the same rights AND responsibilities AND penalties as humans then we really shouldn't go down these paths yet. e.g. how do we decide that some entity is legally human or not?

There are other nonrelated paths of research but with similar problems of whether we really should do them yet. In many cases the benefit to harm ratio would still be rather low.

It's not like we have infinite resources, and there are plenty of more useful things to do research on. So why not do those first then do the other stuff later once we've figured out how to deal with the issues. It's not like some game where if we screw up, we can restore from a savepoint and do other research/tech paths first.

Researching into giving everyone a tool that could kill everyone else in an instant may be a bad idea if we haven't got to the stage where none of us will use it to kill whether on purpose or by accident. That of course is a big stretch, but supposedly it doesn't take very much money and resources to create a deadly virus that will kill many millions of people.

[1] Yes I know humans are animals too, so if you don't know what I mean by "animal" then you should realize the problem even more.

Why not? I thought the whole point of having an XP compatible OS was to run the same apps that would run on Windows XP?

So why wouldn't a pirated copy of Office run on an XP compatible OS?

.NET 6? Uh are we talking about the same thing here? I thought we were talking about people who are still stuck on Windows XP. The sort who are likely to also be stuck on IE6 and using old active X controls. The sort who might still be using .Net 2.0. And the sort who certainly wouldn't be using .NET6 in 2018.

So it does not matter that ReactOS may never catch up with Microsoft, as long as ReactOS can catch up with the current businesses and organizations that are also having difficulty keeping up with Microsoft's changes.

If the Chinese Gov cares that much maybe they should start throwing some resources at ReactOS or similar.

People might have laughed at Red Flag Linux. But if they produce a working XP compatible OS I bet a number of large corporations would be sorely tempted.

Microsoft might even start listening a bit better ;).

Citation please?

Plus even if she is an UMNO member you'd have to show she is "an active player".

Otherwise you could tar all Democrat and Republican members with a similar brush.

Plus the last I checked the US was still friendly with the leader of UMNO.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/10/02/readout-president-s-call-prime-minister-najib-malaysia
  http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2013/10/11/John-Kerry-US-Secretary-of-State-Najib-Tun-Razak.aspx

Is Najib on the no-fly list too?

If they can crack a website's passwords at GPU speeds it means the site is already been compromised.

That's why I don't bother making really strong passwords for most websites. It's a waste of my time - the site is more likely to get hacked then my password bruteforced over network connections. Every few months there's a web service getting pwned.

It's silly to waste time making your password much stronger than a typical website's admin password.

FWIW I've encountered at least one online bank that actually limits passwords to 8 characters for some unknown stupid reason.

If we're going to have technology to improve delivery what would be good is a special receiving container/room.

The container will receive packages and help automatically sign for stuff (e.g. generate a digital signature). It will not verify actual receipt of the desired goods anymore than you signing for it means you received desired stuff in good working order. But it would at least verify that something was delivered and prevent it from easily being stolen.

OK I realize my mistake. What will happen is it will end going in a different shaped orbit.

The rocket won't fly off any more than the earth will.

Say you launch something at the sun at 100kph (while going around at orbit speed) and then you cut the rockets. Relative to the sun there's will be no increase in orbit speed except from whatever it gets from reducing its altitude relative to the sun (potential energy), but as you get lower you need higher and higher speeds to maintain orbit. There is no other force except from the sun and that is always towards the sun's direction. So how can it fly off anywhere? If it can it's magically getting energy - where's that energy coming from?

So who is making hilarious statements?

That article makes the false assumption that to hit the sun you need to reduce the relative velocity to zero.

Assuming no atmosphere if you want to get from a perfectly circular orbit around an object to the objects surface and you don't care about surviving you don't have to reduce your velocity. All you have to do is to head directly towards the object (perpendicular to orbit). Barring outside interference (other objects) there would be no force increasing your altitude so you will eventually crash at a high speed.

Now our orbit isn't perfectly circular, but the reasoning still applies - since we're not interested in "landing" trash on the Sun, we don't have to change the deltav that much. All you need is a suitable trajectory at Earth's escape velocity.

One of the reasons we change velocity when putting stuff on earth or other planets is because we normally want the object to survive. So if you don't care do you really have to do that? Objects traveling faster than Earth's escape velocity can certainly still hit the Earth right?

Assuming you're in a perfectly circular orbit around something with no atmosphere, if you shoot a bullet directly at it (perpendicular to orbit), the bullet will still keep losing altitude - because what other relative force would there be to increase the altitude?

So I suggest that given a suitable trajectory at Earth's escape velocity you can get stuff to hit the Sun. It may take the stuff a longer time to reach the Sun, but who cares as long as the stuff doesn't come back :).

It is hard to certify some program is trouble-free - that's arguably harder than solving the halting-problem- since you aren't provided the full inputs and code (the program might download additional code).

So I proposed something like this:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=308760

Trusted parties ( including 3rd parties) could sign the app and its sandbox.

My proposal is a bit like working around the halting problem by forcibly limiting how long the program will run. ;)