Completely agree. Teaching biologists some proper statistics means they can do so much more. They suddenly can go out of the laboratory, and interpret their own results. Their publications would make more sense. They can plan their own experiments (yes, you need statistics to see what you can measure best to reduce uncertainty the quickest)... They may eventually even be taken serious by other scientists and engineers.
But please do not translate 'generalist' into 'management' or 'economics' or something. They can remain nerds...
Ride quality = less vertical or sideways acceleration Just put a device in the chair, where your bottom would normally be, and measure sudden accelerations (shocks). It's quite easy to do.
Of course it's a failure. Everyone I know went from using Rojadirecta.com to Rojadirecta.es to watch soccer games online. Not a problem at all.
Where 1 gets taken down, 10 new ones emerge.
Fell one giant tree, 10 new trees start to grow. Kill Napster, and 10 new download programs emerged. Kill tvshack, and 10 new streaming databases emerge. Fastpasstv.eu, project free tv, etc.
[...]The Tesla on the other hand describes their car as a supercar. So they did the tests the same way they do all other supercars. On the track at high speeds. The Honda succeeded as reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. Yet the Tesla failed miserably as a supercar.
I remember that it had a really good acceleration, which made up for the poor cornering. The result was that it was pretty fast actually.
Maybe they really just didn't drive it around so much, and since they wanted to get a shot of the car running out of batteries, they staged it. They've staged quite a few more things on that show. Cars spontaneously catching fire. Piano falling from the sky. James supposedly died in Albania (was back the next show). Hey, they just do that. We know it.
Did you guys think that all the contests they showed were really such a close finish every bloody time? Wake up.
I think Tesla makes a mistake with this lawsuit. I do not believe that Top Gear plainly lied about the car. But they more than likely staged some things. They might say sorry publicly, but they'll do it in such a way that they make Tesla look silly. They have a habit of making fun of America anyway... and to get sued - a lawsuit is quite an American habit actually. I think it'll backfire.
Such apps will create the necessary awareness of the dangers of putting too much info online. It'll put a stop to the stupid attitude of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
It's no longer just the government that's looking into your affairs. It's also the neighbor, your aunt in Australia and your colleagues. And with these kinds of apps they can suddenly dig up a lot more dirt. Dirt which was available all along.
The whole idea of a healthcare insurance is to spread the risk between people... therefore it's pretty much necessary that healthy and unhealthy people pay the same. If you have a cheap healthcare for all healthy people, and then an unaffordable one for those more likely to get ill, the system crashes, doesn't it?
An insurance is a protection against future problems. Healthy people also must invest in their own unavoidable loss of health.
[...] and all that money doesnt even go into roads and such, like it should, most of the road network is very much low capacity, and we are only just starting to build extra roads [...]
Road network is low capacity??? In the Netherlands??? You have your facts wrong. The main problem is that the Dutch are in the EU's top-3 of the people who commute the most. The roads are fine, but the Dutch travel too far to work!
On topic again: a plan to ban something in 39 years is of course ridiculous. A whole new generation of politicians will have taken over by then, and assuming that we have the same system, they will make their own plans to impress the people for the upcoming elections. If we have a different system, then the current plans are irrelevant anyway.
How is it mature and sensible to retroactively censor a TV show? Seems more Minitrue to me.
Those shows will probably be back on TV in a few months/years. Right now, with that disaster happening, it seems a little distasteful to laugh about such matters, don't you think?
Although your local news agency might have lost interest, the disaster is still happening right now, and it might affect millions of people.
There's a reason we upgraded from scrolls to books. Rolled up things are an inefficient use of space.
Could it be that we went to books because of the invention of the printing press, which was not able to print continuously on a long scroll (contrary to the more modern printers, starting with the matrix printer)? In the fluids / beverage industry, cylindrical containers are very common. Volumes range from a few milliliters to thousands of tons. Nobody ever complained about the volume taken up by the space between the bottles or tanks. In fact, cylindrical containers tend to be very strong, and that's a major plus.
This. Just because you can make something doesn't mean anyone is going to want it.
Just because it's not what you're used to doesn't mean it's a bad idea:-)
And anyway, just because it's new, there are plenty of people who will want to buy it. Especially if it has an Apple logo.
I'll explain my point by looking at chairs rather than mice first.
At some point, an office chair is good enough. It's got everything for a healthy working position. Spend 4 times more money, and you will most definitely sit more comfortable... but the question we're answering here is: do you work harder with significantly less chance for injury? Maybe just a little. Probably no measurable difference.
I don't doubt for a moment that you get a nicer gaming experience with your MX518 mouse. The question in TFA was not whether you like it more, but whether you can click faster or more precise. The answer given in TFA is that you can't really.
This is not technology that it suited for manned military flight... too slow. Much too slow.
It's more likely to be used for "security" purposes, in conflict areas and in our own urban environments. Basically, while it is easier to keep an eye on some Taliban guys, it also became easier for the cops to spy on us.
And that's what I really hate about technology. It is always available for the wrong purposes too. It just keeps getting easier and easier to covertly keep an eye on large groups of people... and it becomes easier and easier to treat all civilians as suspects, and constantly prove their innocence by covert surveillance. That is not how we're supposed to be treated by our elected governments.
Of course, the elephant in the room is, if we raise to the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050, we'll have to feed 20 billion by 2100. If we continue like that, Earth will resemble some hellish place, overpopulated, over-harvested, polluted and war-torn. (There won't be any elephants left, for that matter, in our outside of rooms.)
Congratulations, you're the first. I had to scroll 80% of the page down... Everyone else is only focussing their misguided attention to solving the world's food problem by 2050. Trying to squeeze out 20%, 50% or even 100% more food.
The core of the problem: * Population growth = exponential * Food production increase = linear at best And everyone with a little math knowledge knows this will all go wrong eventually.
Now, instead of focussing on secondary issues like raising the level of wealth, or creating awareness, we just have to tackle the problem head on. Stop population growth is done by having less babies. Period.
I am against the population reduction proposal, we should look ahead. It is time to send our colonies to outer space, history have proven, human are good at colonizing new world when resources run low back home.
That is unfeasible. The population is going to grow by 2 BILLION in the next 40 years. We cannot send 2 billion people into space, even if we dedicated every resource we have to it. We would have to send 136,000 people into space every day, starting today.
No, I say we stick to plan A, and reduce population growth. Then we might look at space too, but for smaller groups of people.
Tracking people is a matter of supply and demand. The supply side (mobile phone vendors, and networks) are only too happy to get a few extra euro/dollar for nearly nothing. In our capitalist world, it's the only goal of a company to maximize profit. If it's therefore necessary to screw all citizens and track them all, the company will do it.
It's the governments, on the demand side, which should not want the information. It's governments who can (and should) regulate it. But they don't.
Don't blame the mobile phones for a side-effect of an otherwise practical invention.
The constant spying by governments on its citizens is the real problem... not the inventions that enable it.
Use the technology, but for gawd's sake cover your ass and don't be stupid. If you don't know how to maintain true anonymity (I'm behind 7 proxies!), then just use common sense.
Agreed.
It's not the targeted advertisements that worry me. It's that the wrong people get information about me. That I get into embarrassing situations with pieces of information going to places they shouldn't without my approval. It might even be possible to extort people if you have the right info.
So, I would advise you (guy from TFA) that you don't need to wear the hat if you just go to the supermarket... but if you don't want your wife to find out that you have a mistress, and you pass some camera's on the way there, then the hat is advisable.
-- Remember: If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government - but you still have a lot to hide. Why? Because it's none of their f*cking business.
Could not agree more. It's so sad to see that the US just cannot reduce its main costs (defense, banks), and then endlessly fights over the crumbs that are left. But under the Patriot act it's probably not allowed to suggest that spending more money on warfare than all other countries combined is a bad thing?
cheers, A peaceloving cheese-eating suddender monkey
Slashdot Mirror
Completely agree. Teaching biologists some proper statistics means they can do so much more. They suddenly can go out of the laboratory, and interpret their own results. Their publications would make more sense. They can plan their own experiments (yes, you need statistics to see what you can measure best to reduce uncertainty the quickest)... They may eventually even be taken serious by other scientists and engineers.
But please do not translate 'generalist' into 'management' or 'economics' or something. They can remain nerds...
Ride quality = less vertical or sideways acceleration
Just put a device in the chair, where your bottom would normally be, and measure sudden accelerations (shocks). It's quite easy to do.
Of course it's a failure. Everyone I know went from using Rojadirecta.com to Rojadirecta.es to watch soccer games online. Not a problem at all.
Where 1 gets taken down, 10 new ones emerge.
Fell one giant tree, 10 new trees start to grow.
Kill Napster, and 10 new download programs emerged.
Kill tvshack, and 10 new streaming databases emerge. Fastpasstv.eu, project free tv, etc.
p.s. I didn't know Rojadirecta :-)
[...]The Tesla on the other hand describes their car as a supercar. So they did the tests the same way they do all other supercars. On the track at high speeds. The Honda succeeded as reliable user-friendly everyday transportation. Yet the Tesla failed miserably as a supercar.
I remember that it had a really good acceleration, which made up for the poor cornering. The result was that it was pretty fast actually.
Maybe they really just didn't drive it around so much, and since they wanted to get a shot of the car running out of batteries, they staged it.
They've staged quite a few more things on that show. Cars spontaneously catching fire. Piano falling from the sky. James supposedly died in Albania (was back the next show). Hey, they just do that. We know it.
Did you guys think that all the contests they showed were really such a close finish every bloody time? Wake up.
I think Tesla makes a mistake with this lawsuit. I do not believe that Top Gear plainly lied about the car. But they more than likely staged some things. They might say sorry publicly, but they'll do it in such a way that they make Tesla look silly. They have a habit of making fun of America anyway... and to get sued - a lawsuit is quite an American habit actually. I think it'll backfire.
Such apps will create the necessary awareness of the dangers of putting too much info online. It'll put a stop to the stupid attitude of "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
It's no longer just the government that's looking into your affairs. It's also the neighbor, your aunt in Australia and your colleagues. And with these kinds of apps they can suddenly dig up a lot more dirt. Dirt which was available all along.
You are assuming that the aim of healthcare insurance is to provide healthcare to people efficiently rather than to maximise profit for the providers.
Absolutely! :-)
You may call me a communist now
The whole idea of a healthcare insurance is to spread the risk between people... therefore it's pretty much necessary that healthy and unhealthy people pay the same.
If you have a cheap healthcare for all healthy people, and then an unaffordable one for those more likely to get ill, the system crashes, doesn't it?
An insurance is a protection against future problems. Healthy people also must invest in their own unavoidable loss of health.
I have a hunch that their perspective has changed somewhat in the past month or so.
Perspective on what? Time?
I really doubt it. If anything, the near-perfect organisation of Japan has saved countless lives.
Not only did time not stop, but the clocks didn't even stop. They just aren't being synchronized anymore. Oh no!
In Japan, a country that considers a train late if it arrives more than 20 seconds later than scheduled, that's pretty bad.
[...] and all that money doesnt even go into roads and such, like it should, most of the road network is very much low capacity, and we are only just starting to build extra roads [...]
Road network is low capacity??? In the Netherlands???
You have your facts wrong. The main problem is that the Dutch are in the EU's top-3 of the people who commute the most. The roads are fine, but the Dutch travel too far to work!
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
On topic again: a plan to ban something in 39 years is of course ridiculous. A whole new generation of politicians will have taken over by then, and assuming that we have the same system, they will make their own plans to impress the people for the upcoming elections.
If we have a different system, then the current plans are irrelevant anyway.
How is it mature and sensible to retroactively censor a TV show? Seems more Minitrue to me.
Those shows will probably be back on TV in a few months/years. Right now, with that disaster happening, it seems a little distasteful to laugh about such matters, don't you think?
Although your local news agency might have lost interest, the disaster is still happening right now, and it might affect millions of people.
There's a reason we upgraded from scrolls to books. Rolled up things are an inefficient use of space.
Could it be that we went to books because of the invention of the printing press, which was not able to print continuously on a long scroll (contrary to the more modern printers, starting with the matrix printer)?
In the fluids / beverage industry, cylindrical containers are very common. Volumes range from a few milliliters to thousands of tons. Nobody ever complained about the volume taken up by the space between the bottles or tanks.
In fact, cylindrical containers tend to be very strong, and that's a major plus.
This. Just because you can make something doesn't mean anyone is going to want it.
Just because it's not what you're used to doesn't mean it's a bad idea :-)
And anyway, just because it's new, there are plenty of people who will want to buy it. Especially if it has an Apple logo.
Replace? Wait until you get the bill for decommissioning a nuclear plant.
I'll explain my point by looking at chairs rather than mice first.
At some point, an office chair is good enough. It's got everything for a healthy working position.
Spend 4 times more money, and you will most definitely sit more comfortable... but the question we're answering here is: do you work harder with significantly less chance for injury? Maybe just a little. Probably no measurable difference.
I don't doubt for a moment that you get a nicer gaming experience with your MX518 mouse. The question in TFA was not whether you like it more, but whether you can click faster or more precise. The answer given in TFA is that you can't really.
This is not technology that it suited for manned military flight... too slow. Much too slow.
It's more likely to be used for "security" purposes, in conflict areas and in our own urban environments. Basically, while it is easier to keep an eye on some Taliban guys, it also became easier for the cops to spy on us.
And that's what I really hate about technology. It is always available for the wrong purposes too. It just keeps getting easier and easier to covertly keep an eye on large groups of people... and it becomes easier and easier to treat all civilians as suspects, and constantly prove their innocence by covert surveillance. That is not how we're supposed to be treated by our elected governments.
...and send reconnaissance information back to the good guys
So if I know for sure that I'm the bad guy, I definitely don't want to be using one of these.
Or worse: I am not using one of these and I know that Western government like spying on their own citizens, so I must be one of the bad guys!
(I guess that means it's time that I start constructing my underground secret lair!)
If you have nothing to hide, and you don't even know that you're being spied on, then there is no problem and you have nothing to fear!
[/sarcasm]
It was 14.28 hrs in the afternoon when it was posted, you America-centric insensitive clod!
Making contraception available worldwide: cheap and simple
Increasing the level of wealth worldwide: super complicated
Of course, the elephant in the room is, if we raise to the challenge of feeding 9 billion people by 2050, we'll have to feed 20 billion by 2100. If we continue like that, Earth will resemble some hellish place, overpopulated, over-harvested, polluted and war-torn. (There won't be any elephants left, for that matter, in our outside of rooms.)
Congratulations, you're the first. I had to scroll 80% of the page down... Everyone else is only focussing their misguided attention to solving the world's food problem by 2050. Trying to squeeze out 20%, 50% or even 100% more food.
The core of the problem:
* Population growth = exponential
* Food production increase = linear at best
And everyone with a little math knowledge knows this will all go wrong eventually.
Now, instead of focussing on secondary issues like raising the level of wealth, or creating awareness, we just have to tackle the problem head on. Stop population growth is done by having less babies. Period.
I am against the population reduction proposal, we should look ahead. It is time to send our colonies to outer space, history have proven, human are good at colonizing new world when resources run low back home.
That is unfeasible.
The population is going to grow by 2 BILLION in the next 40 years. We cannot send 2 billion people into space, even if we dedicated every resource we have to it. We would have to send 136,000 people into space every day, starting today.
No, I say we stick to plan A, and reduce population growth. Then we might look at space too, but for smaller groups of people.
Tracking people is a matter of supply and demand. The supply side (mobile phone vendors, and networks) are only too happy to get a few extra euro/dollar for nearly nothing. In our capitalist world, it's the only goal of a company to maximize profit. If it's therefore necessary to screw all citizens and track them all, the company will do it.
It's the governments, on the demand side, which should not want the information. It's governments who can (and should) regulate it. But they don't.
Don't blame the mobile phones for a side-effect of an otherwise practical invention.
The constant spying by governments on its citizens is the real problem... not the inventions that enable it.
Use the technology, but for gawd's sake cover your ass and don't be stupid. If you don't know how to maintain true anonymity (I'm behind 7 proxies!), then just use common sense.
Agreed.
It's not the targeted advertisements that worry me. It's that the wrong people get information about me. That I get into embarrassing situations with pieces of information going to places they shouldn't without my approval. It might even be possible to extort people if you have the right info.
So, I would advise you (guy from TFA) that you don't need to wear the hat if you just go to the supermarket... but if you don't want your wife to find out that you have a mistress, and you pass some camera's on the way there, then the hat is advisable.
-- Remember: If you do nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the government - but you still have a lot to hide. Why? Because it's none of their f*cking business.
Could not agree more.
It's so sad to see that the US just cannot reduce its main costs (defense, banks), and then endlessly fights over the crumbs that are left.
But under the Patriot act it's probably not allowed to suggest that spending more money on warfare than all other countries combined is a bad thing?
cheers,
A peaceloving cheese-eating suddender monkey