The way I see it, there are two classes of Apple fanboys and the company is in trouble with both.
The first comprises those who had a fondness for Macs from the beginning and started to deeply love it once Apple became an underdog and then a niche product, mainly because they saw that the reason why Apple lost relevance was that Microsoft was run by assholes who care about a business model first and the quality of their products in a distant second (it works...).
The second class of Apple fanboys are just a fickle new bunch who loves shiny things but, most of all, the coolness of getting shinny things first. These people do not have loyalty to Apple, just to coolness and glitter, and catering to them requires giving the constant impression of innovation, an ability which recent lawsuits show Apple is losing. If Apple thinks it can relax its R&D efforts by keeping its competitors from trying to be cool, it will realize that the world is full of shiny things to steal fanboys class 2.
On the other hand, fanboys class 1 are a different breed altogether. They are smart people who will not get distracted by a pretty new Vaio with pretty new Win7, because they know deep down what these products are and where they come from. But, as Apple moves from being an underdog to being a dominating, oppressive and abusive force in the market, class 1 fanboys are finding it harder and harder to ignore that Apple is everything they hate about an industry that drove them to Apple in the first place.
Apple needs its fanboys more than any other company, and it's not looking good to them.
I now have a desire to subscribe to Popular Science. I may do so in the coming months.
That's right, wait a few months. No one should make the life-changing decision of spending $12 for the one-year subscription in the heat of the moment.
One is science the other is religion. Guess which one does not belong in a schoolbook?
The one that has never been proven.That would be BOTH.
Fantastic conclusion: Science does not belong in schoolbooks. I can only feel for your children.
Also most of the scientists I've meant in three separate colleges believed in a Creator of some kind.
I would strongly suggest you to start frequenting better colleges than the likes of Brigham Young University or Liberty University. Maybe then you would agree with the study by Larson and Witham (Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313) which indicated that from 1913 to 1998, the fraction of leading scientists believing in a personal god fell from 27.7% to 7.0%, whereas the fraction of atheists grew from 52.7% to 72.2% (the remainder is composed of agnostics).
Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution. Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the long day theory.
This is the same old christian misrepresentation of the point against creationism that only christians believe carries any weight. Evolution quite simply denies a creator or intelligent designer not by disproving it (which, of course, would be infeasible), but by providing a verifiable mechanism for the speciation process. The result is that a creator's actions are deemed irrelevant within Biology, as it has been made irrelevant in the physical sciences. And reason naturally compels reasonable people to discard a "theory" that has no explanatory power or measurable outcome in reality. Long day "theory" is nothing but a pathetic attempt to twist the clear words of the genesis in order to adjust them to reality. The only real requirement for such adjustment to be possible is the gullibility of the reader, which, in the case of christians, would be enough to convince them that the true answers to the origins of the universe are in the pages of Alice in Wonderland.
MSNBC is just as biased as Fox News. CNN is trying to stay in the middle
For the sake of the endless discussion on biases from the mainstream media, it's important to clarify that news outlets have leaned towards different sides of the political spectrum for centuries, in all parts of the world. We have always had editorials after all. Whether or not this constitutes bias, the criticism Fox receives is not due to some ideological inclination, but due to frequent and intentional misrepresentation of facts in name of that ideology. The best compilations of Fox biases on the net tend to focus on their factual errors, rather than their choice of subject or tone.
It was, instead, a very crude (embarrassing, for western standards) attempt at Orwellian revisionism substantiated by a direct threat. Their claim that Clinton's comments contradict their constitution just shows how worthless that piece of paper is under a dictatorship.
So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data.
A few simple points that are (surprisingly, still) worth mentioning. Scientists are not coming up with "excuses" for the melting of ice packs. They are observing it and developing explanations based on models. You may personally believe that the melting of ice packs would require "huge" (conveniently unquantified) temperature increases to happen, but I'm willing to bet you personal beliefs in this matter are not based on rigorous observation and mechanistic explanations of the system. The questioning of the data used by scientists to come up with the said explanations has to be addressed in an individual basis. I'm certainly supportive that not only data from global warming research, but all publicly funded research be openly available, but it is utterly naive to think that the all conclusions presented in published peer-reviewed articles would not be supported if these data were available (and it's deceptive, at the least, to question their conclusions without even knowing their contents). The questioning of the motives of the scientific community to fabricate the conclusion of ice packs melting due to anthropogenic climate change is, in my opinion, one of the weakest arguments of denialists. Conspiracy theories abound, but no one seems to find the underlying motives that lead this entire scientific community to take on the daunting task of misleading the world's population, while doing it under the public's scrutiny and very aptly covering its tracks. Staging the moon-landing is child's play compared to this.
Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.
Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.
How on Earth the oceanic water levels will rise *in certain localized areas* is beyond me. Unless your theory accounts for a substantial increase in oceanic water viscosity as well, although that might explain why the current rises in ocean levels have failed to meet your expectations. And, according to recent EPA definitions, the problem of global warming caused by CO2 emissions *is* "the real problem of global pollution".
Incidentally, everyone is naturally entitled to their opinions, but I prefer anthropogenic global warming denialism when it's devoid of blatant logical inconsistencies.
Sylvia Nasar, also the author of "A Beautiful Mind", wrote a great piece about Perelman shortly after the publication of his proof. Deeply moving, in my opinion.
TFA does not mention it and Nature has a paywall, but it would be interesting to know if they supplemented cysteine in these experiments. Cysteine is the only amino acid capable of making disulfide bonds and is only classified as non-essential because it can be converted from methionine. Whether or not they supplemented cysteine may imply that the same benefits could result from reducing the activity of the met->cys pathway.
Rupert seems to be trapped in his private version of the Prisioner's Dilemma. If he could get all news sources to abide to his plan, maybe overall their revenue stream would increase and their business would be more sustainable. But is a few media companies reject this, their readership will skyrocket for being the only free sources, and their ad revenue will jump with it.
Apparently, the GPS logs position, time and speed every 30s. Regardless of how the system calculates speed, whether by averaging between each logged point or using much smaller time intervals, the data shows that the car was stopped at some t = 0 and had moved 2,040 ft after 30s. That results in an average of (2040 ft) / (30 s) = 46.36 mph.
Assuming a linear acceleration profile, he would have had to reach a speed of 92.72 mpg to run the 2040 ft in 30 s, but that's an unfair assumption. He was driving a 200 Toyota Celica GTS, which accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.6s, thus at a maximum he can increase his velocity by 9.1 mph each second (assuming constant acceleration). Thus, the absolute minimal velocity the driver must have reached is 51 mpg, reaching this velocity in 5.6s and maintaining it for the remainder of the path to the next logged point.
The article does not specify where exactly was the police officer read the car's speed, which is crucial to understand if the 62 mpg reading is possible, but the conclusion is that the GPS data by itself does prove that the driver must have been above 45 mpg but does not guarantee that a speed of 62 mph must have been reached.
On a completely unrelated note, and with full awareness of the offtopic mods landslide about to come, how about if, in these times of intense attacks on the very foundations of scientific thought, we more closely watch our language and opt for using "we haven't evolved to heavily multitask"? It's certainly what we intend to say anyways.
Nothing is impossible. But you suggestion gets pretty close. I assume you are not a chemist, but even so, I hope you are not seriously suggesting that what chemistry students do in their labs can be replaced by "chemistry sets" sent to home.
Chemistry is much less about mixing reactants than it is about detecting and analyzing the outcome of reactions and even the simplest equipment to do so can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And even if it were just a matter of mixing colorful liquids at home, students would be relegated to dealing with a ridiculous subset of verifiably non-toxic compounds.
The idea of internet based courses is a great one, but such limitations cannot be disregarded.
I'm quite curious to see how these infringement cases fare in Brazil, from the point of view of popular support. My impression (and a bit of hope) is that decisions such as these are more based on the ignorance of the responsible judge than on respect for the sanctity of the rights of associations who represent copyright holders. That is not to say that copyright is not respected by the justice system, but my feeling is that people would have a harder time to accept a judgement that leaves a person with millions in debt for sharing a few songs, for example.
It is generally perceived in Brazil that the country has many deeper and more pressing judicial problems to tackle than copyright. And pirated music, movies and software are frequently sold even in universities. In my opinion, it reaches the point that it would be seen by many people as a form of exploitation to charge a poor person high prices for music.
In the end, what I would hope to see in Brazil is a justice system with a healthy respect for reasonable copyright, but a society that will not tolerate the judiciary abuses that take place in the US.
The core of the issue is simply that Intelligent Design is not science. Their proponents just do not follow the scientific method. They may come in different flavors, from the christian fundamentalist young earth proponent, to more sensible folks who really would like to carry some civilized debate.
But even the best of the IDers do not make science. The reason for that is that the concept of ID is antithetic to science. ID is a "theory" (that the complexity observed in biology must have been generated by an intelligent force) in search for evidence that so far is inexistent. Scientists, while doing Science, first look at the evidence and let empirical facts (not personal beliefs) guide the development of a theory that is capable of explaining them.
Furthermore, the theories developed by scientists must be verifiable. That means that the theories must be able to generate predictions of phenomena that may be later verified. If the empirical observation is in disagreement with the theory, the theory is incorrect and must be replaced or improved. If the experiments agree with the predictions, the theory passes this test, but continues to be open to negation. If, on the other hand, a "theory" is incapable of generating verifiable predictions, it is simply useless.
Thus IDers however nice and polite and civilized and even intelligent, are not scientists and are committing a fallacy while calling themselves scientists. It is true that IDers do not get the same respect as scientists when presenting their ideas, but that is a necessary mechanism to prevent the noise from taking over the discussion. In other words, if your claim represents a stark departure from the prevailing scientific view, the onus is entirely on you to provide the necessary evidence to convince your peers. IDers have not come close to provide any evidence, much less the quality of evidence necessary to give their claims any legitimacy.
Instead of asking users to label webpages, which would understandably bore them to death, they are asking them to come up with search queries that would have presented the page as a result! Genial! And we get to be introduced to Silverlight in the process! Sign me up.
<quote>When you buy music, make sure to check <a href="http://riaaradar.com/">http://riaaradar.com/</a> to see if the album is from a company that funds the RIAA. If they do, don't buy it and stick it to them a couple dollars of lost earnings at a time.</quote>
That was depressing... Most of the albums I own were released by members of the RIAA.
If we assume that the water in the desired depth of the ocean is at 273K (water's phase diagram shows clearly that the solid-liquid boundary is fairly constant around that temperature for a wide range of pressure, thus it's a lower bound), the pressure required to get liquid carbon dioxide is of 35 bar, or around 340 meters of water column (~1000 ft of depth). Still, liquid CO2 would mix with the water and would acidify it.
To get CO2 in a solid state would require over 3000 bar, or 30 kilometers of water column, assuming that the temperature of the water is 0C.
At 3.5 meters wide, its telescope incorporates the largest mirror ever deployed in space.
It's also important to note that there are fields other than porn in which size matters. In this case, the size of the mirrors in a telescope is proportional to the quantity of light it can focus to its sensors, and thus proportional to its sensitivity.
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, there are two classes of Apple fanboys and the company is in trouble with both.
The first comprises those who had a fondness for Macs from the beginning and started to deeply love it once Apple became an underdog and then a niche product, mainly because they saw that the reason why Apple lost relevance was that Microsoft was run by assholes who care about a business model first and the quality of their products in a distant second (it works...).
The second class of Apple fanboys are just a fickle new bunch who loves shiny things but, most of all, the coolness of getting shinny things first. These people do not have loyalty to Apple, just to coolness and glitter, and catering to them requires giving the constant impression of innovation, an ability which recent lawsuits show Apple is losing. If Apple thinks it can relax its R&D efforts by keeping its competitors from trying to be cool, it will realize that the world is full of shiny things to steal fanboys class 2.
On the other hand, fanboys class 1 are a different breed altogether. They are smart people who will not get distracted by a pretty new Vaio with pretty new Win7, because they know deep down what these products are and where they come from. But, as Apple moves from being an underdog to being a dominating, oppressive and abusive force in the market, class 1 fanboys are finding it harder and harder to ignore that Apple is everything they hate about an industry that drove them to Apple in the first place.
Apple needs its fanboys more than any other company, and it's not looking good to them.
I now have a desire to subscribe to Popular Science. I may do so in the coming months.
That's right, wait a few months. No one should make the life-changing decision of spending $12 for the one-year subscription in the heat of the moment.
One is science the other is religion. Guess which one does not belong in a schoolbook?
The one that has never been proven.That would be BOTH.
Fantastic conclusion: Science does not belong in schoolbooks. I can only feel for your children.
Also most of the scientists I've meant in three separate colleges believed in a Creator of some kind.
I would strongly suggest you to start frequenting better colleges than the likes of Brigham Young University or Liberty University. Maybe then you would agree with the study by Larson and Witham (Edward J. Larson and Larry Witham: "Leading Scientists Still Reject God." Nature, 1998; 394, 313) which indicated that from 1913 to 1998, the fraction of leading scientists believing in a personal god fell from 27.7% to 7.0%, whereas the fraction of atheists grew from 52.7% to 72.2% (the remainder is composed of agnostics).
Creationism does not in anyway detract from evolution. Some people on both sides think creationism and evolution can not exist together, but they can with the long day theory.
This is the same old christian misrepresentation of the point against creationism that only christians believe carries any weight. Evolution quite simply denies a creator or intelligent designer not by disproving it (which, of course, would be infeasible), but by providing a verifiable mechanism for the speciation process. The result is that a creator's actions are deemed irrelevant within Biology, as it has been made irrelevant in the physical sciences. And reason naturally compels reasonable people to discard a "theory" that has no explanatory power or measurable outcome in reality. Long day "theory" is nothing but a pathetic attempt to twist the clear words of the genesis in order to adjust them to reality. The only real requirement for such adjustment to be possible is the gullibility of the reader, which, in the case of christians, would be enough to convince them that the true answers to the origins of the universe are in the pages of Alice in Wonderland.
MSNBC is just as biased as Fox News. CNN is trying to stay in the middle
For the sake of the endless discussion on biases from the mainstream media, it's important to clarify that news outlets have leaned towards different sides of the political spectrum for centuries, in all parts of the world. We have always had editorials after all. Whether or not this constitutes bias, the criticism Fox receives is not due to some ideological inclination, but due to frequent and intentional misrepresentation of facts in name of that ideology. The best compilations of Fox biases on the net tend to focus on their factual errors, rather than their choice of subject or tone.
It was, instead, a very crude (embarrassing, for western standards) attempt at Orwellian revisionism substantiated by a direct threat. Their claim that Clinton's comments contradict their constitution just shows how worthless that piece of paper is under a dictatorship.
So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data.
A few simple points that are (surprisingly, still) worth mentioning. Scientists are not coming up with "excuses" for the melting of ice packs. They are observing it and developing explanations based on models. You may personally believe that the melting of ice packs would require "huge" (conveniently unquantified) temperature increases to happen, but I'm willing to bet you personal beliefs in this matter are not based on rigorous observation and mechanistic explanations of the system. The questioning of the data used by scientists to come up with the said explanations has to be addressed in an individual basis. I'm certainly supportive that not only data from global warming research, but all publicly funded research be openly available, but it is utterly naive to think that the all conclusions presented in published peer-reviewed articles would not be supported if these data were available (and it's deceptive, at the least, to question their conclusions without even knowing their contents). The questioning of the motives of the scientific community to fabricate the conclusion of ice packs melting due to anthropogenic climate change is, in my opinion, one of the weakest arguments of denialists. Conspiracy theories abound, but no one seems to find the underlying motives that lead this entire scientific community to take on the daunting task of misleading the world's population, while doing it under the public's scrutiny and very aptly covering its tracks. Staging the moon-landing is child's play compared to this.
Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.
Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.
How on Earth the oceanic water levels will rise *in certain localized areas* is beyond me. Unless your theory accounts for a substantial increase in oceanic water viscosity as well, although that might explain why the current rises in ocean levels have failed to meet your expectations. And, according to recent EPA definitions, the problem of global warming caused by CO2 emissions *is* "the real problem of global pollution".
Incidentally, everyone is naturally entitled to their opinions, but I prefer anthropogenic global warming denialism when it's devoid of blatant logical inconsistencies.
Sylvia Nasar, also the author of "A Beautiful Mind", wrote a great piece about Perelman shortly after the publication of his proof. Deeply moving, in my opinion.
TFA does not mention it and Nature has a paywall, but it would be interesting to know if they supplemented cysteine in these experiments. Cysteine is the only amino acid capable of making disulfide bonds and is only classified as non-essential because it can be converted from methionine. Whether or not they supplemented cysteine may imply that the same benefits could result from reducing the activity of the met->cys pathway.
If you are interested, here is a list of food products containing high levels of methionine:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000084000000000000000-w.html
And tryptophan:
http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000079000000000000000-w.html
Rupert seems to be trapped in his private version of the Prisioner's Dilemma. If he could get all news sources to abide to his plan, maybe overall their revenue stream would increase and their business would be more sustainable. But is a few media companies reject this, their readership will skyrocket for being the only free sources, and their ad revenue will jump with it.
This article has important details about why the commissioner believes the GPS data supports the ticket.
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20081206/NEWS/812060371/1334/NEWS
Apparently, the GPS logs position, time and speed every 30s. Regardless of how the system calculates speed, whether by averaging between each logged point or using much smaller time intervals, the data shows that the car was stopped at some t = 0 and had moved 2,040 ft after 30s. That results in an average of (2040 ft) / (30 s) = 46.36 mph.
Assuming a linear acceleration profile, he would have had to reach a speed of 92.72 mpg to run the 2040 ft in 30 s, but that's an unfair assumption. He was driving a 200 Toyota Celica GTS, which accelerates from 0-60 mph in 6.6s, thus at a maximum he can increase his velocity by 9.1 mph each second (assuming constant acceleration). Thus, the absolute minimal velocity the driver must have reached is 51 mpg, reaching this velocity in 5.6s and maintaining it for the remainder of the path to the next logged point.
The article does not specify where exactly was the police officer read the car's speed, which is crucial to understand if the 62 mpg reading is possible, but the conclusion is that the GPS data by itself does prove that the driver must have been above 45 mpg but does not guarantee that a speed of 62 mph must have been reached.
I'd say the two groups are more alike than different. One just has more members than the other.
And one should always be right.
A Brigham Young University professor suggesting a possible biochemical link to ethical behavior. Sounds like a letter of resignation to me.
...if the keywords don't match: e.g. you say C++, they ask for "C", again: no interview.
I'm pretty sure your resume will match for "C" somewhere...
...we aren't designed to heavily multitask.
On a completely unrelated note, and with full awareness of the offtopic mods landslide about to come, how about if, in these times of intense attacks on the very foundations of scientific thought, we more closely watch our language and opt for using "we haven't evolved to heavily multitask"? It's certainly what we intend to say anyways.
Nothing is impossible. But you suggestion gets pretty close. I assume you are not a chemist, but even so, I hope you are not seriously suggesting that what chemistry students do in their labs can be replaced by "chemistry sets" sent to home.
Chemistry is much less about mixing reactants than it is about detecting and analyzing the outcome of reactions and even the simplest equipment to do so can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
And even if it were just a matter of mixing colorful liquids at home, students would be relegated to dealing with a ridiculous subset of verifiably non-toxic compounds.
The idea of internet based courses is a great one, but such limitations cannot be disregarded.
I'm quite curious to see how these infringement cases fare in Brazil, from the point of view of popular support. My impression (and a bit of hope) is that decisions such as these are more based on the ignorance of the responsible judge than on respect for the sanctity of the rights of associations who represent copyright holders. That is not to say that copyright is not respected by the justice system, but my feeling is that people would have a harder time to accept a judgement that leaves a person with millions in debt for sharing a few songs, for example.
It is generally perceived in Brazil that the country has many deeper and more pressing judicial problems to tackle than copyright. And pirated music, movies and software are frequently sold even in universities. In my opinion, it reaches the point that it would be seen by many people as a form of exploitation to charge a poor person high prices for music.
In the end, what I would hope to see in Brazil is a justice system with a healthy respect for reasonable copyright, but a society that will not tolerate the judiciary abuses that take place in the US.
The New Yorker recently published an excellent profile of Joe Arpaio. Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but here is the abstract: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/07/20/090720fa_fact_finnegan
The core of the issue is simply that Intelligent Design is not science. Their proponents just do not follow the scientific method. They may come in different flavors, from the christian fundamentalist young earth proponent, to more sensible folks who really would like to carry some civilized debate.
But even the best of the IDers do not make science. The reason for that is that the concept of ID is antithetic to science. ID is a "theory" (that the complexity observed in biology must have been generated by an intelligent force) in search for evidence that so far is inexistent. Scientists, while doing Science, first look at the evidence and let empirical facts (not personal beliefs) guide the development of a theory that is capable of explaining them.
Furthermore, the theories developed by scientists must be verifiable. That means that the theories must be able to generate predictions of phenomena that may be later verified. If the empirical observation is in disagreement with the theory, the theory is incorrect and must be replaced or improved. If the experiments agree with the predictions, the theory passes this test, but continues to be open to negation. If, on the other hand, a "theory" is incapable of generating verifiable predictions, it is simply useless.
Thus IDers however nice and polite and civilized and even intelligent, are not scientists and are committing a fallacy while calling themselves scientists. It is true that IDers do not get the same respect as scientists when presenting their ideas, but that is a necessary mechanism to prevent the noise from taking over the discussion. In other words, if your claim represents a stark departure from the prevailing scientific view, the onus is entirely on you to provide the necessary evidence to convince your peers. IDers have not come close to provide any evidence, much less the quality of evidence necessary to give their claims any legitimacy.
Instead of asking users to label webpages, which would understandably bore them to death, they are asking them to come up with search queries that would have presented the page as a result! Genial! And we get to be introduced to Silverlight in the process! Sign me up.
It seems that it would at least provide deniability, since the ISPs or the e-mail system will never get a copy of the decrypted message.
<quote>When you buy music, make sure to check <a href="http://riaaradar.com/">http://riaaradar.com/</a> to see if the album is from a company that funds the RIAA. If they do, don't buy it and stick it to them a couple dollars of lost earnings at a time.</quote>
That was depressing... Most of the albums I own were released by members of the RIAA.
Dry ice stays solid if you drop it down the bottom of as little as few hundred feet (maybe less) under ocean water.
Not true, according to the phase diagram of carbon dioxide:
http://www69.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=carbon+dioxide
If we assume that the water in the desired depth of the ocean is at 273K (water's phase diagram shows clearly that the solid-liquid boundary is fairly constant around that temperature for a wide range of pressure, thus it's a lower bound), the pressure required to get liquid carbon dioxide is of 35 bar, or around 340 meters of water column (~1000 ft of depth). Still, liquid CO2 would mix with the water and would acidify it.
To get CO2 in a solid state would require over 3000 bar, or 30 kilometers of water column, assuming that the temperature of the water is 0C.
According to Wikipedia:
At 3.5 meters wide, its telescope incorporates the largest mirror ever deployed in space.
It's also important to note that there are fields other than porn in which size matters. In this case, the size of the mirrors in a telescope is proportional to the quantity of light it can focus to its sensors, and thus proportional to its sensitivity.