> Unless, of course, you count the vast array of herbs used through the ages that pharmaceuticals are now based on.
This is not a good comparison if you'd want to make a pro-homeopathy argument. Homeopathy and herbalism are quite different.
I agree with you that medicine can be found in plants. Some plant extracts will cure infections, some will help wounds heal, some will calm you, some act as a painkiller and so on. I've seen it and felt it. I actually wouldn't know how many, but I'd guess a lot of pharmaceuticals are based on the molecules found in these plants. Nature provides in a lot of good stuff including antibiotics.
If I take some herbals or pills, I actually put molecules into my body which could have a certain effect on the biochemistry going on. You gotta take the right mix and right amount to get the right effect. If you use only a fraction of that amount it simply won't work, and an overdose or wrong mix can harm you badly. That's not so hard to believe or proof.
Homeopathy, however, works like this: I shake my water with molecules in a specific way, and now my water itself becomes the medicine. That's right, my water has a memory, it will remember the medicine solved in it, and it will change state and become a medicine all by itself! And because of my shaking and this water memory, I can now dilute my water with molecules by adding more water, shake it again, and it can even be a *stronger* medicine! I can dilute it, shake it, dilute it and shake it until the actual bottle *you* buy does not even contain the original medicinal molecules anymore!
This committee of British members of parliament now says: Shake it!
And rightfully so!
The shaking is a ritual. There's no scientific base for it. No logic reasoning will explain why homeopathics shake the way they shake. Gotta shake it violently! Imagine someone on the market shaking their medicine violently and diluting it with water again and again. Would you buy from them or shake your head, call it quackery and walk away?
Yes, water molecules can "change state" (form ordered networks) but that won't make it a medicine by itself and even if it did, it loses the ordered networks within fifty millionths of a nanosecond.
girl in TRAINING...
so to you, "girlintraining", this gender stuff might all be very important and so on... I really woudn't know if that's your myspace btw... just making a point to everyone else...
... the rest of us simply DON'T GIVE A SHIT... it's "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"... and we DON'T GIVE A SHIT about your gender and your issues about it. There's different forums for that kinda shit...
... other than that... you're more than welcome to discuss any of the topics at hand... just like anyone else... regardless of your gender... post about online privacy... about your latest BSD hack... about whatever the fuck it is that is appropriate for slashdot...
... but don't expect people to go whoooosh about your gender or your pride about it on SLASHDOT, of all sites...
... People won't give a shit... nor respect your gender... they *might* respect a brilliant post... or a funny one... and so on... like you've made a couple before... but start demanding respect for whatever that's just irrelevant to slashdot... and people will make fun of you at best...
... but *most* likely... you'll just attract some anonymous troll who'll like to provoke exactly these kind of reactions from you... because they know you'll bite... bite more and they'll follow you around... they'll bookmark your userpage... there's probably better things to do with your time... because this is a total waste... you'll just get a chuckle out of a troll...
** holds up a worn out sign reading, "--==>> Please do NOT feed the trolls! <<==-- " **
** sighs **
Oh, hint, if you feel personally attacked, and want to defend yourself personally on slashdot... you're probably feeding a troll... because there's nobody here to know you... nobody *can* attack you or disrespect you and so on and so on... you're that "someone on the world"... why would you ever feel attacked? Why would you give a troll what they want?
You're just making an easy target.
Not because of your (trans)gender.
But because you bite.
Bite more, and you'll become an easier target.
Bite more, and slashdot will suck more.
According to wikipedia they took a Honeywell DDP-516 and turned it into a router. It had 24kb of memory... nice for the time and all but not exactly mind blowing science. They got existing hardware to do what they wanted.
It was all about ideas... creating protocols and implementing them. Twelve companies submitted bids and BBN won the contract in 1968. WITHIN A YEAR, arpanet was created, consisting of 4 IMPs! Funny, isn't it!?
A very nice accomplishment. And look how it's growing! It looks like everybody is using the internet nowadays. But that won't mean I'll grant DARPA a hero status and believe they can wave their funds like a magic wand and defeat Moore's law like that.
I call it bullshit, vapor, publicity stunt, or a joke at best.
The IBM Roadrunner:
444.94 megaflops per watt
So... to meet the DARPA goal... you'd only have to be more than 100 times as efficient.
I don't think it's going to happen this year
Why would the EVE developers want you to be able get real dollars for your ISK?
They're not running a business to make *you* money. They rather have the real dollars going into their own pockets selling GTCs, and happily let the abandoned accounts with billions of ISK rot away in the bit bucket.
Nooooo! That'd unleash the giant guinea-pigs and get everyone killed!!
... and it's a sure way to get on one of those cd's with 60 million addresses. They've been doing this for eh... at least 10 years, perhaps 15. I'm wondering what planet this guy has been living on... and if timothy is his neighbour
News at 11.
Yeah... it really helps if you keep things under control
I've used sendmail's (postfix has it too) LUSER_RELAY for a while, and set it to "local:<username>". This sends email for unknown users to <username>, so I didn't have to keep the alias file up... basically it turns every non-existing username into an alias! I could still use
I used this for a while to trap usenet related spam, every post would get a unique FROM address
Only friends and family get a "real" alias. This and keeping my email addresses away from the web has kept my inbox clean... without using a spam filter.
I'm a Linux fan.
Just to avoid labeling myself as a fan, I'll just say I use linux on my desktop, notebook, and my small home server, have done so for over a decade, and I like it a lot
The main reason why "the year of Linux" never happens is that the press (and analysts) keep comparing Linux to what they know: a Windows desktop.
I think "the year of Linux" will not happen either, but for different reasons. Because it's all about evolution, not revolution. Who thought these netbooks would turn an entire new market into Linux users simply looked at a single population at a given time and drew conclusions from it, underestimating Microsoft's ability to catch up quickly.
I'd say that the simple fact that Linux *was* there first is quite nice by itself. Furthermore they're *still* selling 10% of these netbooks with linux while there's now also a Windows option available... which is still a progress in the larger process, these people are now using linux while otherwise they wouldn't. Also, it helped gain Linux more attention, both in media and in personal contacts. People sometimes go like, oh nice small notebook... interesting... what's it running... and so on. That's a "possible linux-user" virus being spread through the population
Sometimes it's also trivial things why people switch. A girl I know studies to become a dentist, and she bought an asus eee netbook with linux. It runs Xandros, based on Debian 4.0, with fluxbox as window manager I think. It looked to be designed to give easy access to commonly used programs and configuration, while hiding everything else under a nice shiny hood. I had to search the web to find out how to get a terminal emulator running on the thing (control-alt-t)
Asking her how she liked the linux environment, she was pretty enthusiastic, it ran solid, responded fast, worked great for her and did everything she wanted to... except that she couldnt access the wifi network at school, the helpdesk didn't support Linux at all, and someone was going to install windows XP on it the next day just so she could get connected at school.
Someone put up a pdf with instructions how to access their school's network with linux, using either the gnome network manager (she had a network manager... but wasn't sure if it was the right one) or shell commands, but she couldn't figure out how to get a shell. She's an intelligent girl, just not so computer/linux savvy, and working with her I got the idea that the fact that wpasupplicant on xandros is called xandros-wpasupplicant might have been just enough to prevent her from succeeding.
Needless to say I installed the certificate and got the stuff going... I hope it worked out, I just had one shot, without the wifi network to test it... if it didn't work the next day at school she'd install xp...
If we keep copying whatever Microsoft implemented 3 years ago, we'll never pass them. What we need are real killer applications in completely new spaces. For instance, look at web applications: that's hurting Microsoft 10 times more than any 3D effect in KDE ever will. The Web made a lot of Microsoft software irrelevant. Linux needs to do the same, by doing something *different*.
Linux *is* about doing things different, whether or not some or all UI elements are "copied" from Windows. There's just so many ways you can present a solitaire game, you know? The file manager has an icon representing an actual file cabinet on many operating systems including phones... Did they all copy that from Microsoft? I don't think so.
All these illusions and delusions put aside... as far as I can see Linux is still infecting the world at a nice evolutionary pace
Probably because those victims were offered a year of "credit monitoring" and those victims took them up on it.
Hmm... credit monitoring (monitoring your credit reports for changes) would increase the chance of detection tho, not decrease the chance of fraud. If the detection rate increases and the chance of fraud is the same, the fraud rate found for the breached data would increase since logically there's only detected fraud in the numbers, not undetected.
It made them more paranoid than they had been before, so they watched their financial data more carefully,
That would have the same effect as the credit monitoring I guess.
and were perhaps more cautious when using their credit cards. (Of course that doesn't reduce the number of attacks, just the number that are successful, but the data posted is a "fraud rate", and doesn't denote "successful vs. unsuccessful.")
Well being more careful might decrease the chance of their cards being abused somewhat indeed...
Or maybe many of them closed out a bunch of unused credit accounts to minimize their footprints, which actually did spare them from further breaches.
... guess that's more likely tho
I also found the written testimony of ID Analytics these numbers originate from.
It makes an interesting read... there's just so many things affecting the fraud rate. For example, the report estimates it'd take a single person about 10 years to use a million breached accounts. Perhaps this one data set was stolen by a smaller group of attackers. Or just one, and a lazy one at that...
There's something wrong with the math in the report tho... they estimate: 5 minutes per application, 6.5 hours a day, 5 days a week, 50 days a year. That's 12 applications per hour * 6.5 * 5 * 50 = 19500 applications per year, or roughly 51 years for a single person, not the 10 they write about.
The report then goes on saying that you'd have to hire 51 workers to complete all that in one year -- which actually triggered my curiosity about these numbers because it matches my 51 years but not their 10
My conclusion is that we can't compare the results of this one study to the overall fraud rate at all. I do agree with jambarama's comment tho that these companies selling credit monitoring services and "fraud protection" try very hard to hype the fraud fear.
They found the fraud rate was 1 in 1020, practically identical to the ambient fraud rate of non-breached data (which was 1 in 1010).
Fraud rate 3 years later of those people was 1 in 1244 - slightly better than average.
So what you're saying is that I should give my data to these thugs and *decrease* the chance of fraud? How's that logical? I'd guess the stolen accounts should have at least the same chance of fraud as any other... why does this not add up?
It was *seriously* showing a right hand on the right hand side of the keyboard... I didn't believe they'd make a mistake like that and checked it, hold my hand up etc...
Look at the picture, there's a long key on the side you're looking at... that's the enter key on the *right* side of a keyboard!
Also look at the shade between the keys, a few keys from the side of the keyboard. It is caused by some extra space between the keys. If you look at the distance from that shade to the side of the keyboard, you'll see it's all the same for the top row (supposedly the function keys), the second and third row... Further down, the finger makes it hard to see more. Anyways, for as far as we can see, the shade runs down in a straight line.
Now look at the left side of your (any!) keyboard, and at the right side of your keyboard, and decide where you could see straight lines like those...
It could have been a keyboard like this The left side of such a keyboard will always resemble something like this... but with all the thousands of photos of keyboards you can find on that side... you won't find *one* matching the one in the picture currently at newsvine, unless you reverse it