By much the same metric, the National Enquirer could say that Donald Trump and Chelsea Clinton conceived a love baby and are running away to the Lesser Antilles to hide it away from prying eyes. Oh, and it is also half armadillo. There's no proof it didn't happen, so it must be true.
I mean seriously, there's a line of implausibility here.
How about you make android as a whole work better on low end devices instead of creating yet another version to support? What a strange concept.
One problem with supporting newer versions of any OS on older devices is the lack of storage. As operating systems gain features, they get bigger, so when you only have, for example, 2 GB of flash, making "Android as a whole work better" is a non-starter, because the whole 6+ GB of Android Nougat won't even fit.
At some point, the only options are to either A. define a standard subset of its features that are available everywhere and make others optional or B. stop supporting the old devices entirely. And at least from my perspective as an iOS developer, it is a lot easier to support older devices with missing features on a current OS than on an ancient OS that is missing features *and* has different bugs to work around. YMMV.
Rubbish. It's a multifactorial process. While HPV is an important factor genetic predisposition [plos.org] is also a factor. Not all women infected with a given carcinogenic strain of HPV develop cancer. So what's the variable? Genetics.
There are a lot of variables. When a virus infects a cell, it injects its DNA into the host's DNA. Unless it is carefully designed to splice itself into a specific spot in the host DNA, there's a decent chance that it will cause damage when it does this. The extent to which that damage matters is relatively random, and whether the damaged cell is screwed up enough to get the host's immune system involved is also relatively random.
Sure, there could be some genetic markers that make it more or less likely for HPV to cause cancer, but random chance will always play a very big role, too.
Either way, though, there's a causative agent without which those genetic markers are harmless, which means it isn't entirely accurate to say that they are genetically predisposed to cancer, and certainly not to a degree that can't be solved through proper vaccination.
- to young women whose ovaries have been damaged by cancer treatments. Should we be restoring fertility to women who develop cancer at an early age? Unless they spend a lot of time around cancer-causing agents, it would be indicative of an hereditary condition.
For most cancers in general, that would probably be true, but not for cancer of the female reproductive system. Only about 20–25% of ovarian cancer is believed to be caused by a genetic predisposition (specifically by one of two relatively common gene mutations that also cause a genetic predisposition for breast cancer). And approximately 0% of cervical cancer is believed to be hereditary; rather, it is generally believed to generally be caused by the HPV virus. So no, it is not generally indicative of a hereditary condition.
This. A thousand times this. The latest version is such a disaster that the previous-generation 4-core Mini was still selling for above-retail prices a couple of years after they discontinued it. It went from being the perfect low-end server to a toy in a single generation.
To be fair, that's partly Intel's fault for using a different pinout for the four-core version, but still....
I definitely do not want to see the movie that combines these titles. I mean, the resulting movie could be about a suicide bomber donkey, but I wouldn't want to chance it.
If wages outpace inflation*, it encourages a bubble in consumer confidence, as consumers have literally more money than they know what to do with. That in turn lowers saving rates, as people finally splurge on the luxuries they've wanted, without thinking much about how temporary their windfall is.
I don't buy the theory that people stop saving when interest rates get low. Never in my life have I heard somebody say, "I'm only getting 1% on the money that I've been saving for retirement. I think I'll piss it away on stupid crap that's going to be broken in three years."
Anybody who actually is saving money has a reason to do so, and that reason is never to earn interest. That's just why they have it in the bank instead of under a mattress. People save money either for the purpose of buying something or retiring. In the first case, they'll buy it when they have enough money, and in the second case, they'll spend it when they retire. The primary motivation for saving money doesn't suddenly go away or even change meaningfully merely because interest rates are low. At best, weak interest rates make people more likely to contact a broker and put their money into the stock market, thus saving money by investing it rather than loaning it to a bank. And when interest rates are low, stocks tend to do significantly better, resulting in those folks having more money, rather than less.
That said, sometimes consumers do find themselves able to buy things sooner because of better availability of credit at lower rates, which does result in more spending and less saving (up to a point, anyway).
That increases risk to future economic downturn when the income stops and they're now in debt and used to a comfortable life. In short, think of 1925, but with rampant money instead of uncontrolled debt.
That makes no sense. If they have more money than they know what to do with, how can they be in debt, which by definition, is caused by spending more than you have? Obviously if they have more money than they actually need, they wouldn't be going into debt, so if that happens while they're still bringing in lots of income, then what you're really describing is not caused by wages outpacing inflation so much as by availability of credit outpacing wages, and consumers not realizing that availing themselves of so much credit is a bad idea.
That said, I think you got the order wrong there. Folks get used to a comfortable lifestyle, and their efforts to maintain that lifestyle after their income decreases causes them to sink rapidly into debt, because they continue to spend like they were making lots of money.
Either way, IMO, we have a serious problem in this country with debt, and it is caused by it being way too easy to get credit, coupled with people being way too eager to take on debt. Blame it on the feds for cutting interest rates too much, or blame it on credit card companies for usurious practices, or blame it on the schools for not teaching home economics, but whoever you blame, the problem is very real, and it is a major contributing cause to poverty. Parents don't teach their kids not to spend more than they earn, and so you get people living well beyond their means by buying stuff on credit and making the minimum payment each month. And then when the jobs disappear, they suddenly can't afford those payments and they lose everything.
Don't get me wrong; credit is a useful tool, within limits. It makes it possible to buy things that you need but cannot afford, such as a house or car. It should, however, be reserved for exceptional situations—mainly for things that either A. will appreciate in value (your house, hopefully), or B. are necessary to earn a living (your car). Credit should never be used to pay for your day-to-day expenses. As soon as you start doing that, you're almost guaranteed to get into real trouble financially; it's mostly a question of when, rather than if. Assumi
Only at the two ends. Your rights do not necessarily extend all the way to the Earth's core merely because you own the surface. Governments often grant others a legal right to bore under your property (e.g. for subway systems). And the deeper you go, the less likely it is that you'll have to deal with any sort of buried utilities. Once you get a couple of hundred feet below the ground, you're almost guaranteed to not hit anything, even in NYC. So it's strictly a question of whether the state grants you appropriate permits to do it or not at that point.
I would assume they would do it through fan-out. Have twenty tunnels in the last few thousand feet, with each one going to a different road so that you're adding twenty times as many cars onto the road system as you otherwise would.
You must haven went to very large schools, but many if not most kids don't have that luxury. Many students have just one or two science / math / etc. teachers for their entire grade.
Actually, I went to a very small public school, and until college, I didn't have that luxury. The problem can't readily be solved for small schools, but it probably doesn't need to be. It's the larger schools—particularly inner-city schools—that have the most serious problems with kids not getting the help they need to succeed, not the schools with a few hundred kids.
Who says it would be just lectures? I carefully used the word "lesson" not lecture. I'm not sure if you have ever played a video game, but there are plenty of ways to make online content interactive.
That has been tried many, many times, and it usually doesn't work well except in fields where the answer is very precise and the steps are very specific, like math. In every other field, there's a huge difference between real, hands-on work and doing stuff on a computer. Maybe we'll get there when we get tactile body suits and immersive VR, but....
Great! In no time you will have these questions in a database so you can present them to students who aren't asking them. All of your follow up comments on this topic are some of the easiest to solve problems once you start teaching more topics virtually.
Not really; the right answer is to use those questions to adjust the lecture and to making the mistakes that led to the question in the first place. Throwing a frequently asked questions list at students is the best way to kill all interest.... But it is true that if they constantly retool the lectures, adding information, tweaking the order of presentation, etc. as students ask questions, everyone benefits. Unfortunately, it's also awfully hard to make that scale, because basically you'd have hundreds or even thousands of people answering the questions and trying to distill those questions into a consistent form in such a way that some data analyst can figure out which ones are really asking the same things and figure out which ones need to be addressed by updating the lesson. It's a lot easier on a smaller scale. (That said, this problem could largely be solved by doing a multi-year pilot with a small number of classrooms.)
Unfortunately, in practice, these sorts of programs tend to do the exact opposite of that. They come up with a set of video lectures, and then they're done, and they move on to some other subject. There's no money in maintenance, so unless there's a competitor right on their heels (and unless switching programs is trivial), there's no real incentive to improve the content once it has been created. Profit motive almost invariably is the death of education support materials.
Which is why I mentioned doing group activities, and having some in person instruction and student interaction. Obviously school isn't just about learn the three R's.
At that point, you have to have an actual teacher in the room anyway, rather than just a babysitter, so what's the point of not letting that person teach?
You explain the exact reason modern and near-future technology is necessary to solve our education problems. It is incredibly inefficient for a human teacher to adjust his teaching style for each of 20+ students in his class. And adjusting for a few struggling students at the expense of the other 15? Is that really your ideal solution?
Nope. The ideal solution is to encourage teachers/professors to specialize in teaching to a specific mode of learning, and encourage students to pick the teachers that best suit their preferred learning styles. In an ideal world, machine learning could be used to pair up students and teachers in optimal ways based on similarity to other students that did well in that teacher's class previously. For that matter, in an ideal world, there would be entire schools that focused on learning in a particular style. (Technically, these do exist, to some degree, but not to the extent that they should.)
There is no reason we couldn't have 1000+ video lessons for any given topic; each slightly different.
You could do that, but it won't help much at all. A video lesson is still fundamentally a lecture. Students that learn better by hearing and seeing will do well with any well-crafted lecture, but students that learn better by doing won't.
Even if image processing has a hard time identifying the "deer in the headlights" look (unlikely) students would be far more willing to ask for help in a 1 on 1 setting between them and the computer / online teaching support staff.
Ask yourself why you will spend eighty hours messing around with something before even considering calling up tech support, and you should understand why that approach won't work.:-D
But in all seriousness, there are a number of reasons why that approach can't work as effectively as a classroom:
It doesn't scale. Frequently, the questions that one student asks are the questions that another student are thinking about but are either afraid to ask or can't quite put into words. And often, those questions are things that other students would have asked later, at some critical point when asking the professor is less convenient, like halfway through the homework. Asking the questions individually to an instructor means answering the same question dozens of times.
Good questions often lead to tangential learning that goes beyond the intended curriculum, creating a deeper understanding of some esoteric subject, and triggering an interest that would not have existed before (often in students other than the one asking the question).
Questions from other students inspire other questions. Humans are very social animals, and having just a few curious people in a class can inspire curiosity in the rest of the population. This, in turn, leads to better long-term learning potential for everyone.
Questions often provide an opportunity for teachers to ask the other students to think about the question and say what they think the answer might be, and explain why. They can then ask the students to consider how they might go about finding out for sure (beyond just reading the book).
This can help develop critical thinking skills.
Humans are very social animals. A big part of education is socialization. We tend to pretend that this isn't important, but arguably it is at least as important as the actual knowledge, at least at the primary and secondary education levels.
In short, your approach would likely improve rote memorization, but would significantly shortchange other important parts of the education process. I'm not only unconvinced that it would be effective, but I'm also convinced that the resulting social isolation would cause serious harm.
It is far better to have different tracks geared for people with different learning styles, with some randomness so the population of learners isn't entirely homogeneous, but with
For this type of product, storing that data might actually make sense to keep. The problem is not that the data is being stored, but rather that it is being stored on disk where anybody with the right access privileges can trivially get to it.
Debug logging is the perfect use case for an in-memory ring buffer. That approach ensures that the data is relatively hard to access (i.e. that it can be accessed only by your debugging tool that knows the magic handshake or whatever). It also ensures that the data is transient enough that using that data maliciously would be fairly impractical.
Seattle got their homelessness problem the old-fashioned way....they *earned* it! As the Progressive controlled cities of Detroit and Chicago so clearly demonstrate, Progressivism kills freedom, jobs, economies, and the dreams of future generations,
Try again. Chicago's main problem is a history of rampant corruption. And Detroit's poverty is largely the result of white flight in the 1970s, which was largely a reaction to race riots. Besides, Detroit didn't turn so strongly Democrat until the late 1980s—significantly after it became relatively poor. If anything, the progressive control was a direct reaction to the city's problems.
Seattle's high number of homeless is largely a result of climate. It is one of the few areas in the country where it almost never gets too cold at night to live out on the streets. As a result of the relatively good weather (though possibly exacerbated by broad availability of various support services), lots of homeless people from other parts of the country end up on the western coast.
Without any firsthand knowledge of anything but the butterfly wings that they used as a model, my guess would be that it lasts forever as long as nothing touches it, and about a nanosecond if something does.:-) If you've ever touched a butterfly's wings and gotten powder all over your hands, you know why I'm so skeptical.
But if those nanoscale structures are actually robust somehow, then this could be pretty cool.
WTF? 300-600 dpi is the actual state of the art - perhaps 1200 at the outside. Somebody doesn't have a clue in hell about the technology.
For commercial-scale printing, 600 DPI is the state of the art. 300 DPI is still in use. But for low-volume printing (e.g. home and commercial small laser printers), the state of the art is about 9600x2400 DPI. Even my near-decade-old Konica Minolta is 9600x600 DPI, so 600 DPI in the page feed direction, 9600 DPI going across the page. So they're off, but not by nearly as much as you might think.
Least disruptive to me: Microsoft. As a Mac user, I haven't used any Microsoft products for any nontrivial amount of time since I took an assembly language programming course before the turn of the century. They could disappear tomorrow, and I wouldn't even notice apart from the uptick in friends asking me to recommend alternative office suites.
Most disruptive to me in the short term: Google. If Google Analytics suddenly went away, it would literally bring the Internet to its knees with stalled connections, no matter what platform you use.
Most disruptive to me in the long term: Apple, because eventually I'll need new hardware.
I think they were trying to make clear that motorcycles aren't a problem, unlike bicycles, which occupy that danger zone halfway between motor vehicles and pedestrians.
Others theorize that they were neither warm-blooded nor cold-blooded. Either way, apparently even the poles weren't permanently frozen during that era anyway, which pretty much destroys any chance of recovering frozen dinosaur remains.
Slashdot Mirror
By much the same metric, the National Enquirer could say that Donald Trump and Chelsea Clinton conceived a love baby and are running away to the Lesser Antilles to hide it away from prying eyes. Oh, and it is also half armadillo. There's no proof it didn't happen, so it must be true.
I mean seriously, there's a line of implausibility here.
One problem with supporting newer versions of any OS on older devices is the lack of storage. As operating systems gain features, they get bigger, so when you only have, for example, 2 GB of flash, making "Android as a whole work better" is a non-starter, because the whole 6+ GB of Android Nougat won't even fit.
At some point, the only options are to either A. define a standard subset of its features that are available everywhere and make others optional or B. stop supporting the old devices entirely. And at least from my perspective as an iOS developer, it is a lot easier to support older devices with missing features on a current OS than on an ancient OS that is missing features *and* has different bugs to work around. YMMV.
There are a lot of variables. When a virus infects a cell, it injects its DNA into the host's DNA. Unless it is carefully designed to splice itself into a specific spot in the host DNA, there's a decent chance that it will cause damage when it does this. The extent to which that damage matters is relatively random, and whether the damaged cell is screwed up enough to get the host's immune system involved is also relatively random.
Sure, there could be some genetic markers that make it more or less likely for HPV to cause cancer, but random chance will always play a very big role, too. Either way, though, there's a causative agent without which those genetic markers are harmless, which means it isn't entirely accurate to say that they are genetically predisposed to cancer, and certainly not to a degree that can't be solved through proper vaccination.
who copyrighted a bucket.
The judge tossed the case
as moot on its face
and he heard the next case on his docket.
No?
Saving money in banks might be a loser's game, but saving money by investing isn't, or at least not inherently so.
For most cancers in general, that would probably be true, but not for cancer of the female reproductive system. Only about 20–25% of ovarian cancer is believed to be caused by a genetic predisposition (specifically by one of two relatively common gene mutations that also cause a genetic predisposition for breast cancer). And approximately 0% of cervical cancer is believed to be hereditary; rather, it is generally believed to generally be caused by the HPV virus. So no, it is not generally indicative of a hereditary condition.
Haven't we met before?
This. A thousand times this. The latest version is such a disaster that the previous-generation 4-core Mini was still selling for above-retail prices a couple of years after they discontinued it. It went from being the perfect low-end server to a toy in a single generation.
To be fair, that's partly Intel's fault for using a different pinout for the four-core version, but still....
I definitely do not want to see the movie that combines these titles. I mean, the resulting movie could be about a suicide bomber donkey, but I wouldn't want to chance it.
I don't buy the theory that people stop saving when interest rates get low. Never in my life have I heard somebody say, "I'm only getting 1% on the money that I've been saving for retirement. I think I'll piss it away on stupid crap that's going to be broken in three years."
Anybody who actually is saving money has a reason to do so, and that reason is never to earn interest. That's just why they have it in the bank instead of under a mattress. People save money either for the purpose of buying something or retiring. In the first case, they'll buy it when they have enough money, and in the second case, they'll spend it when they retire. The primary motivation for saving money doesn't suddenly go away or even change meaningfully merely because interest rates are low. At best, weak interest rates make people more likely to contact a broker and put their money into the stock market, thus saving money by investing it rather than loaning it to a bank. And when interest rates are low, stocks tend to do significantly better, resulting in those folks having more money, rather than less.
That said, sometimes consumers do find themselves able to buy things sooner because of better availability of credit at lower rates, which does result in more spending and less saving (up to a point, anyway).
That makes no sense. If they have more money than they know what to do with, how can they be in debt, which by definition, is caused by spending more than you have? Obviously if they have more money than they actually need, they wouldn't be going into debt, so if that happens while they're still bringing in lots of income, then what you're really describing is not caused by wages outpacing inflation so much as by availability of credit outpacing wages, and consumers not realizing that availing themselves of so much credit is a bad idea.
That said, I think you got the order wrong there. Folks get used to a comfortable lifestyle, and their efforts to maintain that lifestyle after their income decreases causes them to sink rapidly into debt, because they continue to spend like they were making lots of money.
Either way, IMO, we have a serious problem in this country with debt, and it is caused by it being way too easy to get credit, coupled with people being way too eager to take on debt. Blame it on the feds for cutting interest rates too much, or blame it on credit card companies for usurious practices, or blame it on the schools for not teaching home economics, but whoever you blame, the problem is very real, and it is a major contributing cause to poverty. Parents don't teach their kids not to spend more than they earn, and so you get people living well beyond their means by buying stuff on credit and making the minimum payment each month. And then when the jobs disappear, they suddenly can't afford those payments and they lose everything.
Don't get me wrong; credit is a useful tool, within limits. It makes it possible to buy things that you need but cannot afford, such as a house or car. It should, however, be reserved for exceptional situations—mainly for things that either A. will appreciate in value (your house, hopefully), or B. are necessary to earn a living (your car). Credit should never be used to pay for your day-to-day expenses. As soon as you start doing that, you're almost guaranteed to get into real trouble financially; it's mostly a question of when, rather than if. Assumi
Only at the two ends. Your rights do not necessarily extend all the way to the Earth's core merely because you own the surface. Governments often grant others a legal right to bore under your property (e.g. for subway systems). And the deeper you go, the less likely it is that you'll have to deal with any sort of buried utilities. Once you get a couple of hundred feet below the ground, you're almost guaranteed to not hit anything, even in NYC. So it's strictly a question of whether the state grants you appropriate permits to do it or not at that point.
I would assume they would do it through fan-out. Have twenty tunnels in the last few thousand feet, with each one going to a different road so that you're adding twenty times as many cars onto the road system as you otherwise would.
Actually, I went to a very small public school, and until college, I didn't have that luxury. The problem can't readily be solved for small schools, but it probably doesn't need to be. It's the larger schools—particularly inner-city schools—that have the most serious problems with kids not getting the help they need to succeed, not the schools with a few hundred kids.
That has been tried many, many times, and it usually doesn't work well except in fields where the answer is very precise and the steps are very specific, like math. In every other field, there's a huge difference between real, hands-on work and doing stuff on a computer. Maybe we'll get there when we get tactile body suits and immersive VR, but....
Not really; the right answer is to use those questions to adjust the lecture and to making the mistakes that led to the question in the first place. Throwing a frequently asked questions list at students is the best way to kill all interest.... But it is true that if they constantly retool the lectures, adding information, tweaking the order of presentation, etc. as students ask questions, everyone benefits. Unfortunately, it's also awfully hard to make that scale, because basically you'd have hundreds or even thousands of people answering the questions and trying to distill those questions into a consistent form in such a way that some data analyst can figure out which ones are really asking the same things and figure out which ones need to be addressed by updating the lesson. It's a lot easier on a smaller scale. (That said, this problem could largely be solved by doing a multi-year pilot with a small number of classrooms.)
Unfortunately, in practice, these sorts of programs tend to do the exact opposite of that. They come up with a set of video lectures, and then they're done, and they move on to some other subject. There's no money in maintenance, so unless there's a competitor right on their heels (and unless switching programs is trivial), there's no real incentive to improve the content once it has been created. Profit motive almost invariably is the death of education support materials.
At that point, you have to have an actual teacher in the room anyway, rather than just a babysitter, so what's the point of not letting that person teach?
Nope. The ideal solution is to encourage teachers/professors to specialize in teaching to a specific mode of learning, and encourage students to pick the teachers that best suit their preferred learning styles. In an ideal world, machine learning could be used to pair up students and teachers in optimal ways based on similarity to other students that did well in that teacher's class previously. For that matter, in an ideal world, there would be entire schools that focused on learning in a particular style. (Technically, these do exist, to some degree, but not to the extent that they should.)
You could do that, but it won't help much at all. A video lesson is still fundamentally a lecture. Students that learn better by hearing and seeing will do well with any well-crafted lecture, but students that learn better by doing won't.
Ask yourself why you will spend eighty hours messing around with something before even considering calling up tech support, and you should understand why that approach won't work. :-D
But in all seriousness, there are a number of reasons why that approach can't work as effectively as a classroom:
In short, your approach would likely improve rote memorization, but would significantly shortchange other important parts of the education process. I'm not only unconvinced that it would be effective, but I'm also convinced that the resulting social isolation would cause serious harm. It is far better to have different tracks geared for people with different learning styles, with some randomness so the population of learners isn't entirely homogeneous, but with
The mayor is not the only elected official in a city. In fact, it is arguably the least important.
For this type of product, storing that data might actually make sense to keep. The problem is not that the data is being stored, but rather that it is being stored on disk where anybody with the right access privileges can trivially get to it.
Debug logging is the perfect use case for an in-memory ring buffer. That approach ensures that the data is relatively hard to access (i.e. that it can be accessed only by your debugging tool that knows the magic handshake or whatever). It also ensures that the data is transient enough that using that data maliciously would be fairly impractical.
And now they're not homeless, at least for two weeks. Problem solved—maybe not in the way you intended....
Try again. Chicago's main problem is a history of rampant corruption. And Detroit's poverty is largely the result of white flight in the 1970s, which was largely a reaction to race riots. Besides, Detroit didn't turn so strongly Democrat until the late 1980s—significantly after it became relatively poor. If anything, the progressive control was a direct reaction to the city's problems.
Seattle's high number of homeless is largely a result of climate. It is one of the few areas in the country where it almost never gets too cold at night to live out on the streets. As a result of the relatively good weather (though possibly exacerbated by broad availability of various support services), lots of homeless people from other parts of the country end up on the western coast.
Without any firsthand knowledge of anything but the butterfly wings that they used as a model, my guess would be that it lasts forever as long as nothing touches it, and about a nanosecond if something does. :-) If you've ever touched a butterfly's wings and gotten powder all over your hands, you know why I'm so skeptical.
But if those nanoscale structures are actually robust somehow, then this could be pretty cool.
For commercial-scale printing, 600 DPI is the state of the art. 300 DPI is still in use. But for low-volume printing (e.g. home and commercial small laser printers), the state of the art is about 9600x2400 DPI. Even my near-decade-old Konica Minolta is 9600x600 DPI, so 600 DPI in the page feed direction, 9600 DPI going across the page. So they're off, but not by nearly as much as you might think.
Least disruptive to me: Microsoft. As a Mac user, I haven't used any Microsoft products for any nontrivial amount of time since I took an assembly language programming course before the turn of the century. They could disappear tomorrow, and I wouldn't even notice apart from the uptick in friends asking me to recommend alternative office suites.
Most disruptive to me in the short term: Google. If Google Analytics suddenly went away, it would literally bring the Internet to its knees with stalled connections, no matter what platform you use.
Most disruptive to me in the long term: Apple, because eventually I'll need new hardware.
I think they were trying to make clear that motorcycles aren't a problem, unlike bicycles, which occupy that danger zone halfway between motor vehicles and pedestrians.
Do they not have street sweepers where you are? Yikes? What the heck are you paying taxes for? :-D
Others theorize that they were neither warm-blooded nor cold-blooded. Either way, apparently even the poles weren't permanently frozen during that era anyway, which pretty much destroys any chance of recovering frozen dinosaur remains.
That's offensive. He's of Italian descent, not Spanish. :-D