It's interesting that the author uses a time killing game as a yard stick for the waiting period - as if the time spent while printing was 'dead' and couldn't possibly be used for anything productive.
That's his point - for the purposes of using the makerbot, it is dead time. You can't iterate before you have something, and you can't have something for 5 hours with a 33% chance that hardware failure was the problem and not the design.
What we're really seeing here is the impatience of the Now Generation. What? You have to wait -thirty minutes- for something to be produced?? OMG!
That's basically the same as having to wait 5 hours, right?
Have these people any idea how long it takes to produce something through conventional CNC, let alone hand fabrication?
How many amateurs are willing to burn virtually all of their free time for a day to do those things? Very few. Comparing your professional abilities and patience to his amateur abilities and patience is unfair (to put it very kindly).
Are you kidding me? Just imagine what advances will come to mankind when one alien orders from another alien on ebay and paypal keeps both the item and money when there's a "dispute".
Looks like everything's in order. From a technical and possibly legal perspective, then, everyone is barred from laughing at GP's post until further notice.
I'm pretty sure word on stuxnet broke well before the Mandiant report showed a clear link to the Chinese government. It's hard to hide something that does physical damage to your enemy's hardware.
That's cute. Companies have been patenting genes for a while now, ones found in the wild without any modification by the company. If that doesn't count as prior art, I don't see how nests or hives would.
I work for a large company that hires based on talent. We can't get enough workers, H-1B or not. We don't discriminate based on age or anything else, just skill. The stories in my area are the same for all companies: we can't get enough skilled programmers.
This headline will just serve as an excuse for people to post rants about how their talent is being overlooked because of the foreigners invading our shores while ignoring the fact that many people who try to work as programmers are just terrible (see: fizzbuzz).
Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's obvious and should be able to be patented. You need someone who knows the field to determine whether it's obvious or not, and if you have someone who knows the field looking at the working code, they could do just as well looking at the application (once it was translated into English, anyway).
I'm sure he'll spare no expense, maybe make them dependent on something that only he can give them, and then certainly make them all the same gender. Given all that, what's the worst that could happen?
The way it currently works is that generics don't need to go through the same trials because they're the exact same chemical and re-proving that it's safe and effective doesn't add anything. If it would add something, then we probably improve the required trials so that one set is good enough.
The other argument against requiring generics to go through trials is that cheap generics are an important part of healthcare. If you don't have the insurance to pay for the latest and greatest, you can use the generic instead and it will cost you $10 / month.
Of course you could solve the same problem by pealing back the red tape as well
In pharma, that red tape is known as "making sure the drug doesn't outright kill you." It's not perfect and it's currently being gamed, but the red tape is absolutely necessary.
The other problem with pharma is that the red tape is only necessary for the first person to do it. Thus, if the patent system goes away but the red tape stays there, then innovation will disappear completely because everyone will jump on the new drugs with generics and no need to recoup the costs of making sure it doesn't kill people.
There are things that need fixing with pharma, but simply eliminating red tape and patents certainly won't do it.
I don't think lab animal is at all what he/she would be. The most interesting part of the experiment would be how he/she interacts with humans socially, starting with an actual adoptive family and schooling if appropriate.
Moving to cross-country comparisons, we find that
earlier results linking the gender gap in math to measures of gender equality are sensitive to the
inclusion of Muslim countries, where in spite of women’s low status, there is little or no gender
gap in math.
Also, looking at the graphs of gender gap vs gender equality, there's a trend towards no gender gap as equality goes up. Further, the gender gap is all over the place clustered around or just below 0.
Am I missing something here that says the gender gap isn't artificial?
Understand that in average both sexes are not equally fit for every task and equally gifted in everything is not sexism it is lucidity
Sorry for the poor source, but girls and boys are equal in mathematic ability when you look worldwide, which indicates that differences in the west are due to cultural bias, not natural ability.
Physically, men are stronger than women on average, but mentally it appears that it's entirely or nearly entirely cultural. In that case, saying that they're different on average in mental ability is at the very least supporting a sexist construct in our culture.
Except that if you're using it, then it was probably not the result of a startup that was bought and killed.
That VC money doesn't appear out of thin air. It often comes with the intention of the company being acquired, and was money previously invested in other companies that got acquired. It's all part of the ecosystem.
You aren't using significant in the statistical sense. They're basically saying that there was an effect that happened at the same time, but they aren't sure whether it was a random effect or not.
Because of the stigma I'd guess. I know teenage girls who got pregnant and their parents pressured them into keeping the baby instead of putting it up for adoption even though it was going to destroy their lives.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the murder in the slightest.
It wasn't pertinent to the point I was trying to make and is covered in full in the link that I provided. Sorry if that was legitimately misleading, but my point wasn't that natural sources are so much larger than human ones per se, but that choosing volcanism was misleading and that the overall tone was too hostile.
I'm sorry, but what lies and bullshit am I using? I pointed out that human CO2 production IS dwarfed by natural production. I didn't go into the other facts because it didn't factor into the point that I was trying to make, that while combating people who disbelieve AGW we should be accurate. The link I gave you went into the full details. I didn't go into the full details because my point was that your comment wasn't accurate about why he was wrong and it was overly combative to boot. I'm curious as to why you're attacking me so strenuously. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just that the way you've said it is overly combative and not a full answer. Yet you're attacking me by saying I'm spreading lies and bullshit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's interesting that the author uses a time killing game as a yard stick for the waiting period - as if the time spent while printing was 'dead' and couldn't possibly be used for anything productive.
That's his point - for the purposes of using the makerbot, it is dead time. You can't iterate before you have something, and you can't have something for 5 hours with a 33% chance that hardware failure was the problem and not the design.
What we're really seeing here is the impatience of the Now Generation. What? You have to wait -thirty minutes- for something to be produced?? OMG!
That's basically the same as having to wait 5 hours, right?
Have these people any idea how long it takes to produce something through conventional CNC, let alone hand fabrication?
How many amateurs are willing to burn virtually all of their free time for a day to do those things? Very few. Comparing your professional abilities and patience to his amateur abilities and patience is unfair (to put it very kindly).
Slashdot.org is not a newsfeed for Pintrest and Best Buy shoppers
That might have been true a few years ago...
Are you kidding me? Just imagine what advances will come to mankind when one alien orders from another alien on ebay and paypal keeps both the item and money when there's a "dispute".
I think that's the point, but it can also prove the opposite. Full honesty and a good record will help both sides.
Looks like everything's in order. From a technical and possibly legal perspective, then, everyone is barred from laughing at GP's post until further notice.
hiding it better
I'm pretty sure word on stuxnet broke well before the Mandiant report showed a clear link to the Chinese government. It's hard to hide something that does physical damage to your enemy's hardware.
That's cute. Companies have been patenting genes for a while now, ones found in the wild without any modification by the company. If that doesn't count as prior art, I don't see how nests or hives would.
Don't forget rants about how you're expecting to get competent talent for $17K/year.
6 figure salaries in an area where cost of living makes that a lot of money. But don't let your ignorance stop you from commenting.
I work for a large company that hires based on talent. We can't get enough workers, H-1B or not. We don't discriminate based on age or anything else, just skill. The stories in my area are the same for all companies: we can't get enough skilled programmers.
This headline will just serve as an excuse for people to post rants about how their talent is being overlooked because of the foreigners invading our shores while ignoring the fact that many people who try to work as programmers are just terrible (see: fizzbuzz).
Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's obvious and should be able to be patented. You need someone who knows the field to determine whether it's obvious or not, and if you have someone who knows the field looking at the working code, they could do just as well looking at the application (once it was translated into English, anyway).
It's weird that you have content as a public member but require a getter for position. Seems like you should be consistent one way or the other.
I'm sure he'll spare no expense, maybe make them dependent on something that only he can give them, and then certainly make them all the same gender. Given all that, what's the worst that could happen?
No real scientist would do that.
The way it currently works is that generics don't need to go through the same trials because they're the exact same chemical and re-proving that it's safe and effective doesn't add anything. If it would add something, then we probably improve the required trials so that one set is good enough.
The other argument against requiring generics to go through trials is that cheap generics are an important part of healthcare. If you don't have the insurance to pay for the latest and greatest, you can use the generic instead and it will cost you $10 / month.
Of course you could solve the same problem by pealing back the red tape as well
In pharma, that red tape is known as "making sure the drug doesn't outright kill you." It's not perfect and it's currently being gamed, but the red tape is absolutely necessary.
The other problem with pharma is that the red tape is only necessary for the first person to do it. Thus, if the patent system goes away but the red tape stays there, then innovation will disappear completely because everyone will jump on the new drugs with generics and no need to recoup the costs of making sure it doesn't kill people.
There are things that need fixing with pharma, but simply eliminating red tape and patents certainly won't do it.
They could put that on literally everything.
I don't think lab animal is at all what he/she would be. The most interesting part of the experiment would be how he/she interacts with humans socially, starting with an actual adoptive family and schooling if appropriate.
Moving to cross-country comparisons, we find that earlier results linking the gender gap in math to measures of gender equality are sensitive to the inclusion of Muslim countries, where in spite of women’s low status, there is little or no gender gap in math.
Also, looking at the graphs of gender gap vs gender equality, there's a trend towards no gender gap as equality goes up. Further, the gender gap is all over the place clustered around or just below 0.
Am I missing something here that says the gender gap isn't artificial?
Understand that in average both sexes are not equally fit for every task and equally gifted in everything is not sexism it is lucidity
Sorry for the poor source, but girls and boys are equal in mathematic ability when you look worldwide, which indicates that differences in the west are due to cultural bias, not natural ability.
Physically, men are stronger than women on average, but mentally it appears that it's entirely or nearly entirely cultural. In that case, saying that they're different on average in mental ability is at the very least supporting a sexist construct in our culture.
Except that if you're using it, then it was probably not the result of a startup that was bought and killed.
That VC money doesn't appear out of thin air. It often comes with the intention of the company being acquired, and was money previously invested in other companies that got acquired. It's all part of the ecosystem.
You aren't using significant in the statistical sense. They're basically saying that there was an effect that happened at the same time, but they aren't sure whether it was a random effect or not.
Because of the stigma I'd guess. I know teenage girls who got pregnant and their parents pressured them into keeping the baby instead of putting it up for adoption even though it was going to destroy their lives.
Of course, that doesn't excuse the murder in the slightest.
Hell, every pizzeria around here uses the real thing, whole-milk mozzarella.
Unfortunately, not everyone can live in a city with decent pizza. For the rest of us, Papa Johns is better than the other national chains.
It wasn't pertinent to the point I was trying to make and is covered in full in the link that I provided. Sorry if that was legitimately misleading, but my point wasn't that natural sources are so much larger than human ones per se, but that choosing volcanism was misleading and that the overall tone was too hostile.
I'm sorry, but what lies and bullshit am I using? I pointed out that human CO2 production IS dwarfed by natural production. I didn't go into the other facts because it didn't factor into the point that I was trying to make, that while combating people who disbelieve AGW we should be accurate. The link I gave you went into the full details. I didn't go into the full details because my point was that your comment wasn't accurate about why he was wrong and it was overly combative to boot. I'm curious as to why you're attacking me so strenuously. I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said, just that the way you've said it is overly combative and not a full answer. Yet you're attacking me by saying I'm spreading lies and bullshit.