a) enhance the surreality of certain drugs (didn't know surreality was a word, but spellchecker isn't complaining. Interestingly, my spellchecker says spellchecker is spelled wrong.
b) make sex with unattractive people more fun. Actually, this would make sex with attractive people more fun too. As long as they don't complain about the massive stupid looking goggles you have on. Or the massive thing that powers them and keeps hitting your partner in the ribs.
Yes, these touch screens are deal breakers with me as well. I just can't imagine how anyone could find it useful to be forced to take these things out of their pocket and look at it directly just to pause or turn the volume down. Bad for drivers too. Oh, and just wait 'till winter and you have gloves on. It's so much fun to expose my hand to freezing wind just to skip to the next song.
But, the flashiness of the touch screen seems to win out over common sense.
Indeed. I kind of fear what their reaction is going to be when they see their fighting skills unfavourably compared to those of pirates and monkey robots.
Durn. Thanks for the info. I only started using it a week ago. I guess I'll stop using it now before I get used to it and build up many playlists only to have it taken away.
The only thing Pandora asked of me to "prove" I'm in the US is a zip code. So I gave them one. I'm not in the US and I'm still using it with no problems.
Cost is still a major issue though. The article only has one number in it, that densities will go up to 160Gb. Do you think they'll take a cheque for that, or you do you have to spread and touch your toes in person?
Considering the level of technophilia around here I bet that second proposition sounds reasonable to some in exchange for a 160GB flash drive. I myself would maybe even engage in a little 2nd base action for that kind of payoff.
I suspect that the levelling off of consumer drives is due to there being not enough demand by average consumers. I myself am a bit of a file hog, but a 500GB drive would still hold all my dvd rips and music. Now I'm sure that's average or less for folks around here, but I bet most people are satisfied with the wimpy 80-160GB drives that come with their computer.
On the other hand, flash storage is at that point where it's almost enough for a lot of people but not quite, so the companies are probably working even harder now to get it past the tipping point. I read somewhere that Samsung has stated they will double flash sizes every year for the foreseeable future.
Yeah. Maybe I haven't been paying attention to the tech world for long enough, or maybe I'm just gullible, but I'm starting to think that MS is actually starting to see the value of contributing to open source.
At the very least, it makes for good/. articles, what with all the suspicion and guessing about what their intentions are.
Science DOES work on peer review. The framework in place (i.e. the Scientific Method) doesn't automatically provide a method of preventing abuse. Someone has to hold you to that method. That's where peer review comes in. Everything in science is either peer reviewed or ignored. (Though sometimes it shouldn't be ignored, but science does tend to eventually correct that mistake.)
No, science does NOT work solely on peer review. And there IS a framework in place (without peer review) that provides a method of preventing abuse. That's the point I was trying to make in my first post: physical laws do not allow abuse past a certain point. If I am trying to achieve some noteworthy goal in the lab, I can't influence the actual results, no matter how corrupt or desperate for fame I am.
Wikipedia does not have any natural laws keeping it in check. It's just information. That's the final result: information. You can lie, thus spreading false information. And if other authority figures lie with you, you get away with it. In science I could lie and say I've turned lead to gold. But so what? The information that I've turned lead to gold is not the final product of the experiment. The actual gold (or lack of it) is. So even if other scientists agree with me, signaling a complete failing of the peer review system, it's not going to get me any gold. Physical laws automatically provide a method of preventing abuse. The final product can't be influenced by my lies, unlike the final product of Wikipedia.
And I'm not saying peer review doesn't play a part, just that it's not the only or even major part of science. I was in grad school for years before anything I did was peer reviewed, and no, it was not ignored at all. Was I not practicing science? Real science goes on in labs, offices and conferences. Peer reviewed journals are just how we compete for funding.
If so, did you notice that I quoted the parent nearly word for word from his first few sentences, save for replacing terms about Wikipedia with Science?
Yes.
With that in mind, can you elaborate on why you think I might not be using sarcasm to make a point?
Because the person you replied to actually had a valid point about Wikipedia. I'm guessing now that you were criticizing his assertion that Wikipedia is flawed because it "only" works through peer review. But your counter assertion that peer review is enough, using science as an example of an institution that works through peer review, is wrong IMO. So maybe that's why I didn't see the sarcasm: because it's a bad analogy. Peer review is not the process that makes sure that science works. If results in science were just about peer review it would be as flawed as Wikipedia.
If you had used as an example some other institution that works, and works well, through peer review alone, the analogy would have worked and the sarcasm would have been easier to detect. As it was, it just sounded like another post-modernist attack on physical reality by someone who doesn't know what the scientific method is.
And no, I hadn't read the other comments. Also I actually really like Wikipedia. The subjects that are open to groupthink abuse aren't generally the ones I read.
How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!
Were you being sarcastic? Well, if not: it's getting pretty tiring to hear people suggest how subjective science is. Here are two checks and balances: Experiments and mathematics. Obligatory xkcd reference here
Yes, there's a lot of subjectiveness and groupthink involved in determining what research is important and publishable. And there may be groupthink involved in determining what some equations or the results of an experiment mean. But groupthink does not influence the equations or the experimental findings themselves. Go look in some hard science journals. You'll see the actual results of an experiment, or the actual equations that were derived. Those aren't open to interpretation. No amount of groupthink is going to sway the value of a measurement or integral. If you came up with a model that is shit, reality will tell you. Physical reality limits the amount of subjectivity allowed in science.
Even in the area of global warming, it's only the meaning of the measurements, not the measurements themselves, that are being debated. And yes, the meaning of the results is important too, but most science results are actually much more easy to interpret than global warming findings. Much of science can be really straightforward. Got a new theory on how to do some amazing thing? Try it. If the amazing thing happens, you were right. If it doesn't you were wrong. Simple.
Yes, Ubuntu (and most distros I imagine) have French Canadian localization as well as keyboard layouts. I was using them for a while when I wanted to improve my (Quebecois) French.
Everything that you've said seems fair. But where it isn't fair is when some newspaper or magazine or FOSS users who just don't know any better first call the whole OS Linux and then go on to say that Linus invented it.
It can't be both. Either it's just the kernel and Linus made it, or it's the OS and Stallman, Linus and a bunch of other people made it. And I'm not saying that you did this in your post. It just ticks me off when I see a journalist do that in print.
There was a tape and the word of some eyewitnesses. That's what was leaked. Nothing personal about anyone. If you know that the authorities are lying and hiding evidence, then no, leaking info is not detrimental to an ongoing investigation. It's what the investigation needs.
Here's an article where the police claimed there were no working cameras on the tube during the shooting:Before leak
And here's a later article showing a still from the camera which caught the non-running, non-bulky jacket wearing Brazillian being shot by police:
After leak
Who's to say that this info would have ever come to light, either in public or in the investigation, without the leak?
If we are going to say that it's always wrong to leak info about an ongoing investigation then we have to trust the authorities to always do the right thing in regards to the evidence. So here are two examples (the wiretapping and the London shooting) where, clearly, we couldn't trust them.
It's a tricky question, but if I had to choose one extreme over the other I'd say all evidence in an investigation should be available all the time.
If they have a PhD in something other than physics, and they have the appropriate experience, then yes, they would get hired by my group. My point is that, today, that required experience comes with the physics PhD. The PhD is not something where you just improve your research techniques. There are important things that you learn during your PhD that do not get taught in undergrad and don't get taught in the grad studies of other fields.
So yes, I agree technically that it's not what one's PhD is in that's important, it's what one knows. But the fact is, no one without a PhD in physics (or physical chemistry) would have the experience that our group would require, especially when compared to other job candidates who did do their PhD in physics. My group not hiring someone without a physics PhD is not a failing on the part of my group, it's just a practical realization of that fact.
If I were in charge they would get punished hard. As in torture. yeah, that's right, torture.
First I'd give them poison. Some kind that would give them a splitting headache, as if their
brain is too big for their skulls. Then I'd surround them with some ear-splitting noise, not unlike
the sound of rockets launching. Finally I'd give them some nausea inducing experience. Like how when
you're on a plane and the altitude drops suddenly making you "weightless" for a second. But I'd make it
last several days.
Yeah, that'd learn 'em not to get drunk before a shuttle mission.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Maybe it was like that in times past, but not today. Even in the UK a PhD does include learning about specific things. Not only would my group never hire someone without a PhD specifically in physics (possibly physical chemistry), they wouldn't hire someone without experience specifically in laser cooling (which you won't get in any undergrad program). A person with a bachelor's degree in physics and a PhD in social work would be completely useless to us.
Maybe if the GNU folks had only been working on a kernel instead of also doing the hundreds of other programs as well, they would have made more headway with HURD. And if Linus had been trying to do a whole OS and not just the kernel, Linux the kernel would still be early in development.
The mention of GNU should merely point out how important the GNU is in GNU/Linux. As Linus said in the post: Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you
need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may
be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used
with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft.
Also, this is just a short term test of one type of illness suspected of being caused by these towers. A test of long term effects, done by doctors and not the patients' perception needs to be done. And even if that were done, this isn't testing for the cancer and leukemia that most people are worried about.
Slashdot Mirror
The atheists were wrong!
So, on to what's important: who's playing Minmei?
I agree with your sentiment, but reading a wiki article about a song is hardly as uplifting as hearing it
Ah, but it's not even useless.
a) enhance the surreality of certain drugs (didn't know surreality was a word, but spellchecker isn't complaining. Interestingly, my spellchecker says spellchecker is spelled wrong.
b) make sex with unattractive people more fun. Actually, this would make sex with attractive people more fun too. As long as they don't complain about the massive stupid looking goggles you have on. Or the massive thing that powers them and keeps hitting your partner in the ribs.
Yes, these touch screens are deal breakers with me as well. I just can't imagine how anyone could find it useful to be forced to take these things out of their pocket and look at it directly just to pause or turn the volume down. Bad for drivers too. Oh, and just wait 'till winter and you have gloves on. It's so much fun to expose my hand to freezing wind just to skip to the next song.
But, the flashiness of the touch screen seems to win out over common sense.
Indeed. I kind of fear what their reaction is going to be when they see their fighting skills unfavourably compared to those of pirates and monkey robots.
Monkey robots ftw.
Durn. Thanks for the info. I only started using it a week ago. I guess I'll stop using it now before I get used to it and build up many playlists only to have it taken away.
Well, bon jour Deezer!
Al Gore is a particle physicist?
The only thing Pandora asked of me to "prove" I'm in the US is a zip code. So I gave them one. I'm not in the US and I'm still using it with no problems.
Cost is still a major issue though. The article only has one number in it, that densities will go up to 160Gb. Do you think they'll take a cheque for that, or you do you have to spread and touch your toes in person?
Considering the level of technophilia around here I bet that second proposition sounds reasonable to some in exchange for a 160GB flash drive. I myself would maybe even engage in a little 2nd base action for that kind of payoff.
I suspect that the levelling off of consumer drives is due to there being not enough demand by average consumers. I myself am a bit of a file hog, but a 500GB drive would still hold all my dvd rips and music. Now I'm sure that's average or less for folks around here, but I bet most people are satisfied with the wimpy 80-160GB drives that come with their computer.
On the other hand, flash storage is at that point where it's almost enough for a lot of people but not quite, so the companies are probably working even harder now to get it past the tipping point. I read somewhere that Samsung has stated they will double flash sizes every year for the foreseeable future.
Yeah. Maybe I haven't been paying attention to the tech world for long enough, or maybe I'm just gullible, but I'm starting to think that MS is actually starting to see the value of contributing to open source.
/. articles, what with all the suspicion and guessing about what their intentions are.
At the very least, it makes for good
Science DOES work on peer review. The framework in place (i.e. the Scientific Method) doesn't automatically provide a method of preventing abuse. Someone has to hold you to that method. That's where peer review comes in. Everything in science is either peer reviewed or ignored. (Though sometimes it shouldn't be ignored, but science does tend to eventually correct that mistake.)
No, science does NOT work solely on peer review. And there IS a framework in place (without peer review) that provides a method of preventing abuse. That's the point I was trying to make in my first post: physical laws do not allow abuse past a certain point. If I am trying to achieve some noteworthy goal in the lab, I can't influence the actual results, no matter how corrupt or desperate for fame I am.
Wikipedia does not have any natural laws keeping it in check. It's just information. That's the final result: information. You can lie, thus spreading false information. And if other authority figures lie with you, you get away with it. In science I could lie and say I've turned lead to gold. But so what? The information that I've turned lead to gold is not the final product of the experiment. The actual gold (or lack of it) is. So even if other scientists agree with me, signaling a complete failing of the peer review system, it's not going to get me any gold. Physical laws automatically provide a method of preventing abuse. The final product can't be influenced by my lies, unlike the final product of Wikipedia.
And I'm not saying peer review doesn't play a part, just that it's not the only or even major part of science. I was in grad school for years before anything I did was peer reviewed, and no, it was not ignored at all. Was I not practicing science? Real science goes on in labs, offices and conferences. Peer reviewed journals are just how we compete for funding.
Tell me, did you read the post I was replying to?
Yes.
If so, did you notice that I quoted the parent nearly word for word from his first few sentences, save for replacing terms about Wikipedia with Science?
Yes.
With that in mind, can you elaborate on why you think I might not be using sarcasm to make a point?
Because the person you replied to actually had a valid point about Wikipedia. I'm guessing now that you were criticizing his assertion that Wikipedia is flawed because it "only" works through peer review. But your counter assertion that peer review is enough, using science as an example of an institution that works through peer review, is wrong IMO. So maybe that's why I didn't see the sarcasm: because it's a bad analogy. Peer review is not the process that makes sure that science works. If results in science were just about peer review it would be as flawed as Wikipedia.
If you had used as an example some other institution that works, and works well, through peer review alone, the analogy would have worked and the sarcasm would have been easier to detect. As it was, it just sounded like another post-modernist attack on physical reality by someone who doesn't know what the scientific method is.
And no, I hadn't read the other comments. Also I actually really like Wikipedia. The subjects that are open to groupthink abuse aren't generally the ones I read.
How is Science any different from groupthink? Scientists are no where near as impartial as they claim to be. The only checks and balances in place are reviews by scientific peers!
Were you being sarcastic? Well, if not: it's getting pretty tiring to hear people suggest how subjective science is. Here are two checks and balances: Experiments and mathematics. Obligatory xkcd reference here
Yes, there's a lot of subjectiveness and groupthink involved in determining what research is important and publishable. And there may be groupthink involved in determining what some equations or the results of an experiment mean. But groupthink does not influence the equations or the experimental findings themselves. Go look in some hard science journals. You'll see the actual results of an experiment, or the actual equations that were derived. Those aren't open to interpretation. No amount of groupthink is going to sway the value of a measurement or integral. If you came up with a model that is shit, reality will tell you. Physical reality limits the amount of subjectivity allowed in science.
Even in the area of global warming, it's only the meaning of the measurements, not the measurements themselves, that are being debated. And yes, the meaning of the results is important too, but most science results are actually much more easy to interpret than global warming findings. Much of science can be really straightforward. Got a new theory on how to do some amazing thing? Try it. If the amazing thing happens, you were right. If it doesn't you were wrong. Simple.
Yes, Ubuntu (and most distros I imagine) have French Canadian localization as well as keyboard layouts. I was using them for a while when I wanted to improve my (Quebecois) French.
Scenario 1:
Me: Have you heard of product x?
Friend #1: Yes.
Me: Don't buy their products! They use teh evil popups!
Scenario 2:
Me: Have you heard of product x?
Friend #2: No, what do they do?
Me: Hey look! A puppy!
Everything that you've said seems fair. But where it isn't fair is when some newspaper or magazine or FOSS users who just don't know any better first call the whole OS Linux and then go on to say that Linus invented it.
It can't be both. Either it's just the kernel and Linus made it, or it's the OS and Stallman, Linus and a bunch of other people made it. And I'm not saying that you did this in your post. It just ticks me off when I see a journalist do that in print.
There was a tape and the word of some eyewitnesses. That's what was leaked. Nothing personal about anyone. If you know that the authorities are lying and hiding evidence, then no, leaking info is not detrimental to an ongoing investigation. It's what the investigation needs.
Here's an article where the police claimed there were no working cameras on the tube during the shooting:Before leak
And here's a later article showing a still from the camera which caught the non-running, non-bulky jacket wearing Brazillian being shot by police: After leak
Who's to say that this info would have ever come to light, either in public or in the investigation, without the leak?
If we are going to say that it's always wrong to leak info about an ongoing investigation then we have to trust the authorities to always do the right thing in regards to the evidence. So here are two examples (the wiretapping and the London shooting) where, clearly, we couldn't trust them.
It's a tricky question, but if I had to choose one extreme over the other I'd say all evidence in an investigation should be available all the time.
If they have a PhD in something other than physics, and they have the appropriate experience, then yes, they would get hired by my group. My point is that, today, that required experience comes with the physics PhD. The PhD is not something where you just improve your research techniques. There are important things that you learn during your PhD that do not get taught in undergrad and don't get taught in the grad studies of other fields.
So yes, I agree technically that it's not what one's PhD is in that's important, it's what one knows. But the fact is, no one without a PhD in physics (or physical chemistry) would have the experience that our group would require, especially when compared to other job candidates who did do their PhD in physics. My group not hiring someone without a physics PhD is not a failing on the part of my group, it's just a practical realization of that fact.
If I were in charge they would get punished hard. As in torture. yeah, that's right, torture. First I'd give them poison. Some kind that would give them a splitting headache, as if their brain is too big for their skulls. Then I'd surround them with some ear-splitting noise, not unlike the sound of rockets launching. Finally I'd give them some nausea inducing experience. Like how when you're on a plane and the altitude drops suddenly making you "weightless" for a second. But I'd make it last several days.
Yeah, that'd learn 'em not to get drunk before a shuttle mission.
Oh wait.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. Maybe it was like that in times past, but not today. Even in the UK a PhD does include learning about specific things. Not only would my group never hire someone without a PhD specifically in physics (possibly physical chemistry), they wouldn't hire someone without experience specifically in laser cooling (which you won't get in any undergrad program). A person with a bachelor's degree in physics and a PhD in social work would be completely useless to us.
What's next Robotech?
Maybe. If the atheists are wrong.
Look on the bright side. If you go through a nasty breakup you'll know exactly how to get back at her while someone else gets the blame.
Maybe if the GNU folks had only been working on a kernel instead of also doing the hundreds of other programs as well, they would have made more headway with HURD. And if Linus had been trying to do a whole OS and not just the kernel, Linux the kernel would still be early in development.
The mention of GNU should merely point out how important the GNU is in GNU/Linux. As Linus said in the post: Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft.
Also, this is just a short term test of one type of illness suspected of being caused by these towers. A test of long term effects, done by doctors and not the patients' perception needs to be done. And even if that were done, this isn't testing for the cancer and leukemia that most people are worried about.
In summary, I think that headline is misleading.