Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook
At some point in time the cure becomes worse than the disease. I think we're already past that point.
You have to know that the spy agencies have a list of demands they hold for situations like this. Strike while the terror is hot.
If your tinfoil hat is on too tight you might suspect they fund some of these events when ever they don't get their way.
Nah, that's crazy talk. Where are my meds....
Finding things that kill bacteria is easy. Finding things that kill bacteria and do not significantly harm the host, now that is the hard part.
The hardest part might be finding patients willing to spend a year dead and buried in some random field just to cure a case of jick itch.
Cams are as much to stop citizen abuse as they are to stop police abuse.
In fact, will be born out after a couple years of vest cam usage.
Also, you may want to rethink your position. When the gunny drives by and peppers your house with automatic weapons fire just because your un-redacted face and voice appeared in a police video you will (too late) realize that you have surrendered the streets to the thugs.
So says the professor.
The Judges don't always agree.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
Exactly,
The conspiracy theorists have to dial it down a bit.
The redacting is for faces that must be protected by law, such as children, and witnesses.
Hardly make sense for the police to release photos of witnesses so that the thugs homeboys can put a hit on them.
The redaction is Like the redaction on street view, blurring of faces.
There are also places where the police have no right to film, such as in homes.
The other thing they fail to understand is that causality is patently obvious in the vast majority of cases where there are no confounding factors.
Probably the social sciences are most in need tests like this, as they are always trying to pin some outcome on some input in a bubbling cauldron of alternatives. But of course, the cauldron is full of confounding factors.
Some parts of this can be done even cheaper.
Don't hook up enough external bandwidth such that someone can copy 100 terabytes of data without anyone noticing. Even at gigibit Ethernet speed that takes an incredibly long time to copy that much data.
Sure, they have to move high-def movie clips, maybe even entire movies around between their various sites. But anyone stealing that much data would have to be INSIDE their network with a suitcase full of terabyte drives, or outside their network with a couple months to invest in the project.
Finally, some on who gets it,
Set your client up right and stop all this hand wringing. Its a tempest in a teapot.
Hey, if I write an email, I own the copyright, correct?
The encryption is a method I use to keep others from reading said copyrited work, correct?
This means that removing the encryption is in effect, circumventing a copywrite protection, and illegal under the DMCA.
No, you misunderstand what is going on here.
StartTLS is something that happens when your email client connects to the mail server with an insecure protocol on a non-ssl port, and then asks the server to switch to a secure connection. Its your clue that you are doing it wrong,
Connect on a secure port over ssl (usually 465) instead of 25. Set your client up right to use a secure port and they can't deny a secure connection. (Unless they don't support security at all, in which case run away from them like your hair is on fire).
WITHOUT doing it right, your email was never secure, never encrypted, so no DMCA violation.
They aren't denying you a secure connection, they are just putting the burden on you to do it properly instead of having their servers to the extra work of switching an insecure connection to a secure one, which usually entails a whole bunch of handshake-security dance.
Set your client up the right way on the right ports.
Well I assure you someone will have complete visibility into the cloud.
Money from government. We're here to help.
I like how smartass respondents like to gloss over confirmations in their own reference as if they didn't exist, and wouldn't be caught.
Phototoxicity often occurs upon repeated exposure of fluorescently labeled cells to illumination from lasers and high-intensity arc-discharge lamps. In their excited state, fluorescent molecules tend to react with molecular oxygen to produce free radicals that can damage subcellular components and compromise the entire cell. In addition, several reports have suggested that particular constituents of standard culture media, including the vitamin riboflavin and the amino acid tryptophan, may also contribute to adverse light-induced effects on cultured cells. Fluorescent proteins, due to the fact that their fluorophores are buried deep within a protective polypeptide envelope, are generally not phototoxic to cells. However, many of the synthetic fluorophores, such as the MitoTracker and nuclear stains (Hoechst, SYTO cyanine dyes, and DRAQ5), can be highly toxic to cells when illuminated for even relatively short periods of time. In designing experiments, fluorophores that exhibit the longest excitation wavelengths possible should be chosen in order to minimize damage to cells by short wavelength
It wasn't the light that was toxic you idiot.
It was the fluorescent molecules added to the specimen, and
constituents of standard culture media,
nuclear stains, dyes, etc.
Light itself is not toxic. Read reverseengineer's response http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
As best I can tell, even reading all the other replays, THIS reply is the only one that makes any sense at all.
Toxic light is a new one.
Having no substance, light can't carry any toxins.
The light might fry the specimen. But no rational definition of toxic applies here.
The whole story is a balloon, a trial balloon.
Let's promise broadband everywhere and see if the sheep will buy into (pay for) our surveillance platform.
Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.
