What's the point? It just exploits the hope of those guys to get a real date, without the actual hope of getting a real one.. Wait, scratch that... It will probably be hugely popular... *sigh*.
It's basically a short circuiting of the evolutionary drive to reproduce. Same thing with pron, there's no chance of anything happening but it's insanely popular because the emotional drive is both strong and non-selective.
I believe that you've found the very core of the anti universal health-care movement. The vast majority of the argument is "you're dying, that is your problem not mine" which is disgusting. The argument isn't even whether or not there's a better system it's "them damn socialists."
Mozilla is aware of the claim of a zero-day in Firefox as posted here: http://secunia.com/advisories/38608/. We cannot confirm the report as we have received no details regarding the reported vulnerability, such as a proof-of-concept or steps to reproduce. We’ve attempted to contact the researcher who discovered the issue but have not received a response.
Secunia: omfg Firefox has a vulnerability!!! Mozilla: ok so what are the specifics? Secunia:... Mozilla: Hello? Secunia:... Mozilla: Anyone? Secunia a few days ago: Right then... here are the details... Mozilla: *patched beta*
His model seems to do well in cases where a relatively small number of people have significant influence on the outcome and since accurate predictions about the stock market require a model that both accurately predicts events in industry/production as well as the influence of large numbers of stockholders it probably wouldn't be wise to apply his model to that kind of situation; he even admits as much, that it's only good for fairly small groups.
Well technically, he probably wasn't wrong on that point. It is quite possible, if not likely, that Ahmadinehad wasn't actually elected by the people of Iran but remained in power because the elections were rigged and didn't really matter anyway.
That's pretty much what I've been saying about the subject of AGW for quite some time now. China and friends are not going to "do the riht thing" unless there's money in it. Find a way to make meaningful AGW mitigation profitable and the problem largely solves its self.
Not everything that is your immediate self interest is in your or your species' long term interest. Thievery, fraud and property destruction being perfect examples of this. So while it may benefit the fossil fuel industries to pretend nothing is our doing, the people that have to live with the consequences of pollution in all its forms surely don't. Even the most hard core libertarians admit that pollution is a form of rights violation; the *only* question are whether high levels of CO2 constitute such a case and the science seems to say "yes." As for how to reduce emissions to avoid such property damage, this is less clear cut.
What do, you know, independent evaluators of his claims say?
Well he hasn't submitted anything about his computer model to peer review so I'd imagine that it would be something along the lines of show us how or it didn't happen.
So what of the future? Another of Bueno de Mesquita's recent predictions addresses the future of climate change negotiations up to 2050. Depressingly, he predicts that although the world will negotiate tougher greenhouse gas reductions than in the Kyoto protocol, in practise these are likely to be abandoned as Brazil, India and China rise in power in relation to the European Union and the US.
No word on what we could do to avoid such a fate. It would be interesting to see what if anything could be done to avoid a prisoner's dilemma type situation in the case of AGW mitigation. If the model he's usin could predict such an outcome accurately, it can also predict what could be done to avoid such a negative outcome.
If I was a parent I wouldn't want to interfere with my 16-17 year old teen sex life, and I sure as hell didn't want my parents to interfere with mine when I was that age.
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
The odds of two non-identical twin individuals sharing the same 26 marker genetic fingerprint are several billion to one. THe reason it is a bad idea is that it's unconstitutional, a severe violation of privacy and certain for abuse.
No search or seizure may be conducted without probable cause and a warrant by a judge. It's unconstitutional and our law student friend should know this.
who the frack cares what a college student has to say?
Careful there, he might have political aspirations and actually get this nonsense passed by congress.
Non-protein coding regions would be far far more accurate. Biologists have known this to be the case for quite some time yet the media just won't let the "junk DNA" term die.
These 26 markers are basically snippets of DNA that are cut out of a DNA sample using endonucleases. these enzymes only cut at specific sites like GATTACA but not AATTACA etc. These cuts depend on the sequence of the snippet in question. The cuts are different lengths depending on where that GATTACA site is. A mutation at the G in the example causes the enzyme not to cut where it normally does. The probability of two separate individuals sharing the same genetic fingerprint would be at the least incredibly rare outside of identical twins. So much in fact that human error with the test its self would be far more likely to blame for a match on more than one individual than more than one individual sharing the same genetic fingerprint outside of identical twins.
If you had spent 8 hours straight working on these devices' software/hardware etc. would you want to play with them in your free time? I'd imagine that a lot of MS's staff would very much prefer to keep work at work and Zunes etc. out of their free time.
I hate to reply to myself but I thought I should point out a bit of psychology:
"This is a workforce that's known for returning diamonds and tens of thousands of dollars passengers leave behind," Desai said. "To be told the same workforce is ripping off passengers for four dollars and change each ride just doesn't match."
Well I suppose that's about like the difference between stealing a pen from the bank and robbing the bank. The pen is easy for people to steal as it is easier to rationalize guilt away (it's a 10 sent pen and they've got millions of them) while it's hard to justify bank robbery (that's peoples' paycheck etc.) Then there's the odds of getting caught and the payoff: ripping someone off for a few bucks on a long cabride probably won't get you caught (well it didn't after all... until the ps that is) while stealing a 5k piece of jewelry will probably be noticed by whomever you've just effectively robbed.
Maybe so however, Desai was speaking of cabbies as an entity more than a collection of individuals. The argument that the cabbies as an entity couldn't possibly have been responsible for quite a bit of fraud because the cabbies as an entity were known to be trustworthy in prior cases to a degree still fails.
Bhairavi Desai, head of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, said the charges of rampant thievery defied logic. The new GPS technology and meters installed in every cab are the problem, not the solution, she said.
In other words, the problem isn't defrauding customers, it's getting caught.
"This is a workforce that's known for returning diamonds and tens of thousands of dollars passengers leave behind," Desai said. "To be told the same workforce is ripping off passengers for four dollars and change each ride just doesn't match."
"we have you on tape shoplifting a candy bar at the store but you've been trustworthy before so it doesn't match up."
You act like the insurance company has no financial incentive to drive costs down. If they determine that the hearing aids are too expensive, they either won't cover them (any government requirement not withstanding) or pass the cost to the insured.
1) see #4 2) doesn't the insurance company have a vested interest in cutting costs? are they blindly paying out huge sums of cash for medical devices without thought or something? 3) even so, approximately 2 million are sold in the US on a yearly basis. 4)
Once a design has been proven safe/effective, there's a strong incentive to change anything
That does not seem to be the case though if liability for failure is such a huge cost sink. Now if it's just a case of a fraked up legal system (quite possible actually) that is doing more than going after companies that do not take reasonable steps to protect patients then you'd have a point here. Now in the case of "markets" with low competition like the medical industry, there is a tendency to raise prices to obscene levels if the value to the patient is worth the cost. In the case of medical devices, the ability to survive (i.e. AIDS drugs) or in this case, hear, is extremely valuable and results in a situation where patients will pay enormous amounts of money because survival, hearing etc. is enormously valuable. The price becomes what the market will bear instead of near cost like an efficient market would bring.
You have to remember that a white dwarf's gravity is truly enormous and that even at the orbital velocities these dwarfs are orbiting each other, they should still be mostly spherical. At least spherical enough that an artists' rendition shouldn't be too inaccurate.
Some plans are so foolish that it makes you wonder if there's actual brain damage involved. For one thing, even if his original plan worked, he'd still be a million in the hole and two, there's no way to hide something like that from the authorities for any amount of time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's basically a short circuiting of the evolutionary drive to reproduce. Same thing with pron, there's no chance of anything happening but it's insanely popular because the emotional drive is both strong and non-selective.
I believe that you've found the very core of the anti universal health-care movement. The vast majority of the argument is "you're dying, that is your problem not mine" which is disgusting. The argument isn't even whether or not there's a better system it's "them damn socialists."
Secunia: omfg Firefox has a vulnerability!!! ... ...
Mozilla: ok so what are the specifics?
Secunia:
Mozilla: Hello?
Secunia:
Mozilla: Anyone?
Secunia a few days ago: Right then... here are the details...
Mozilla: *patched beta*
A fix already exists, it's just not in the official release.
His model seems to do well in cases where a relatively small number of people have significant influence on the outcome and since accurate predictions about the stock market require a model that both accurately predicts events in industry/production as well as the influence of large numbers of stockholders it probably wouldn't be wise to apply his model to that kind of situation; he even admits as much, that it's only good for fairly small groups.
Well technically, he probably wasn't wrong on that point. It is quite possible, if not likely, that Ahmadinehad wasn't actually elected by the people of Iran but remained in power because the elections were rigged and didn't really matter anyway.
That's pretty much what I've been saying about the subject of AGW for quite some time now. China and friends are not going to "do the riht thing" unless there's money in it. Find a way to make meaningful AGW mitigation profitable and the problem largely solves its self.
Not everything that is your immediate self interest is in your or your species' long term interest. Thievery, fraud and property destruction being perfect examples of this. So while it may benefit the fossil fuel industries to pretend nothing is our doing, the people that have to live with the consequences of pollution in all its forms surely don't. Even the most hard core libertarians admit that pollution is a form of rights violation; the *only* question are whether high levels of CO2 constitute such a case and the science seems to say "yes." As for how to reduce emissions to avoid such property damage, this is less clear cut.
Well he hasn't submitted anything about his computer model to peer review so I'd imagine that it would be something along the lines of show us how or it didn't happen.
No word on what we could do to avoid such a fate. It would be interesting to see what if anything could be done to avoid a prisoner's dilemma type situation in the case of AGW mitigation. If the model he's usin could predict such an outcome accurately, it can also predict what could be done to avoid such a negative outcome.
correction: soft on "crime" either way it is using the state's power to enforce some politician's personal morality on others.
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
The odds of two non-identical twin individuals sharing the same 26 marker genetic fingerprint are several billion to one. THe reason it is a bad idea is that it's unconstitutional, a severe violation of privacy and certain for abuse.
No search or seizure may be conducted without probable cause and a warrant by a judge. It's unconstitutional and our law student friend should know this.
Careful there, he might have political aspirations and actually get this nonsense passed by congress.
Non-protein coding regions would be far far more accurate. Biologists have known this to be the case for quite some time yet the media just won't let the "junk DNA" term die.
These 26 markers are basically snippets of DNA that are cut out of a DNA sample using endonucleases. these enzymes only cut at specific sites like GATTACA but not AATTACA etc. These cuts depend on the sequence of the snippet in question. The cuts are different lengths depending on where that GATTACA site is. A mutation at the G in the example causes the enzyme not to cut where it normally does. The probability of two separate individuals sharing the same genetic fingerprint would be at the least incredibly rare outside of identical twins.
So much in fact that human error with the test its self would be far more likely to blame for a match on more than one individual than more than one individual sharing the same genetic fingerprint outside of identical twins.
If you had spent 8 hours straight working on these devices' software/hardware etc. would you want to play with them in your free time? I'd imagine that a lot of MS's staff would very much prefer to keep work at work and Zunes etc. out of their free time.
I hate to reply to myself but I thought I should point out a bit of psychology:
Well I suppose that's about like the difference between stealing a pen from the bank and robbing the bank. The pen is easy for people to steal as it is easier to rationalize guilt away (it's a 10 sent pen and they've got millions of them) while it's hard to justify bank robbery (that's peoples' paycheck etc.) Then there's the odds of getting caught and the payoff: ripping someone off for a few bucks on a long cabride probably won't get you caught (well it didn't after all... until the ps that is) while stealing a 5k piece of jewelry will probably be noticed by whomever you've just effectively robbed.
Maybe so however, Desai was speaking of cabbies as an entity more than a collection of individuals. The argument that the cabbies as an entity couldn't possibly have been responsible for quite a bit of fraud because the cabbies as an entity were known to be trustworthy in prior cases to a degree still fails.
In other words, the problem isn't defrauding customers, it's getting caught.
"we have you on tape shoplifting a candy bar at the store but you've been trustworthy before so it doesn't match up."
You act like the insurance company has no financial incentive to drive costs down. If they determine that the hearing aids are too expensive, they either won't cover them (any government requirement not withstanding) or pass the cost to the insured.
1) see #4
2) doesn't the insurance company have a vested interest in cutting costs? are they blindly paying out huge sums of cash for medical devices without thought or something?
3) even so, approximately 2 million are sold in the US on a yearly basis.
4)
That does not seem to be the case though if liability for failure is such a huge cost sink. Now if it's just a case of a fraked up legal system (quite possible actually) that is doing more than going after companies that do not take reasonable steps to protect patients then you'd have a point here. Now in the case of "markets" with low competition like the medical industry, there is a tendency to raise prices to obscene levels if the value to the patient is worth the cost. In the case of medical devices, the ability to survive (i.e. AIDS drugs) or in this case, hear, is extremely valuable and results in a situation where patients will pay enormous amounts of money because survival, hearing etc. is enormously valuable. The price becomes what the market will bear instead of near cost like an efficient market would bring.
You have to remember that a white dwarf's gravity is truly enormous and that even at the orbital velocities these dwarfs are orbiting each other, they should still be mostly spherical. At least spherical enough that an artists' rendition shouldn't be too inaccurate.
Yes.
Some plans are so foolish that it makes you wonder if there's actual brain damage involved. For one thing, even if his original plan worked, he'd still be a million in the hole and two, there's no way to hide something like that from the authorities for any amount of time.