I dunno. The story was true. I still occasionally get the urge to put together a cheap box for something or other, and GP was informative to me, at least.
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. They might be trying to preemptively throttle competition. But based on past performance, I'm thinking that this is probably just routine dickery.
The last time I tried to build an Intel box for Linux work, I lost my grip on the cheap generic case, and sustained a cut that sent me to the emergency room. One of the things I like about my Mac is the lack of cutting edges.
There's no particular reason a continuous input at a given frequency can't cause oscillations which increase until something breaks.
Yes, there is. It's called "dissipation".
As something wiggles, it tends to leak energy into its mounting points or the medium surrounding it. In some cases, like Tacoma Narrows, energy can't dissipate as quickly as it accumulates, and that's when you get structural failure. Engineers strive to predict these vibrational modes and design their structures so that dissipation will always exceed accumulation before the resonance causes damage.
... will drive evolution of all languages toward vocabulary and syntax that's less prone to embarrassing or dangerous misinterpretation?
I used to wonder if voice recognition would drive a big shift in pronunciation patterns, but now I expect that automatic voice recognition will outstrip human voice recognition before that can happen. Maybe the same thing will happen with translation, too.
Develop a robust, redundant code around substituting two spaces for one after a period/full stop, or adding spaces at the end of a paragraph. Or occasionally substitute em- and en-spaces. It accomplishes the goal, and it doesn't vandalize the source.
I certainly hope there's more than enough backlash to kill the idea of changing words. Otherwise, after ten or twenty more years of natural-language understanding research, we're going to see them trying to do the same thing with plots, or character development.
It's a bit difficult to see how anybody could make a profit off mandatory vaccination of health workers. There's an extreme shortage of N1H1 vaccine, so any that actually gets made is going to be sold and used
You know, if I could pass along the "insightful" points from my post to yours, I would. I'm not sure why I didn't see this myself.
I actually meant "mouse embryos", since that's what TFA and our lab's work was about. Yes, zebrafish are easier -- in fact, you can get varieties that stay transparent into adulthood, which opens all sorts of possibilities. But there are a lot of things you can do in mouse models that you can't do in fish or whatnot.
Yeah, and if you've got repeating motion, you can sort of patch together a 4D image (3D over time). Alex's atlas is actually 4D, although the different timepoints were necessarily from different specimens. (And obviously not isotropic on time -- to get a true 4D isotropic dataset, our 19.5 micron/voxel spatial resolution would demand 65-femtosecond temporal resolution, which is (a) physically impossible and (b) of no use to an anatomist.)
You can get arbitrarily good images of fixed (dead) embryos, but live imaging using any method is damn tough, and live 3D imaging at this resolution is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Motion makes it nearly impossible to do MR or CT 3D imaging. You can gate against the cardiac cycle to image a single animal, but nobody can yet gate against a fetal heartbeat in a mouse. I'm not even sure if that would be enough, because the maternal heartbeat contributes significant motion, too.
One of our doctoral students did a 3D atlas of the embryonic mouse using MR microscopy. These were fixed specimens, but they're isotropic (the same spatial resolution in all three dimensions), and nobody's come close to matching our resolution as far as I know. Part of her work was looking at cardiac septal defects, which you pretty much have to study in embryos, because they aren't compatible with live birth.
One drawback of OCT is that it fails if you have to go through much tissue. Mice are tiny enough to make this work possible, but I don't think there's any way you could do it in humans, short of inserting a source/detector into the uterus, which kind of spoils the whole "non-invasive" feature.
Tell you what. Instead of spending my time "rebutting" the unending stream of drivel that I'm sure you can dredge up, I'll just give you this advice:
If you'd like to make your medical decisions based on contrarian rants from ninteen twenty-three, be my guest. Please feel free to abstain from then-nonexistent antibiotics. Heck, feel free to discard the entire "germ theory of disease." The more thoroughly you reject the benefits of modern medicine, the sooner the gene pool will be rid of you.
My real concern is that early transfer techniques will be piss-poor and not copy all synaptic connections, leading to early transfers not being themselves, and people dismissing the whole technology as evil and worthless.
Some will. But think about people who suffer traumatic brain injury. They're "not themselves" afterward, they often suffer horribly, and they might face impairments for the rest of their lives -- but the majority of them are still grateful to be alive. Most people -- not all, but most -- would choose continued life with some impairment over certain death.
Some people will be "early adopters" for this kind of pseudo-immortality, and some people will never accept it. But I imagine the largest class will want to wait as long as they can, risking the chance of death, to let the techniques advance as far as possible. I think that's the class in which I'd find myself.
Sleep. Your stream of conscious experience stops when you go to sleep, and resumes when you wake up. Sure, there's some brain activity during sleep -- but during the deepest phases, there's nothing like "consciousness". In fact, given the consolidation processes and whatnot that happen during sleep, you could make a very convincing argument that the person who wakes up in your body tomorrow morning will not be the "you" that falls asleep tonight.
There is no compelling reason to create an interstate authority to deal with something as physically local as wires between your house and a network switch a mile away. There were some good reasons for creating the FCC, and none of those reasons apply here.
Let me float this analogy. The FCC regulates and licenses the wireless spectrum. Should local governments, since they're so much more representative and responsive, be able to impose their own regulations instead? If I'm transmitting in a range that's only line-of-sight, why is it the Federal government's business? If my local government wants to prohibit me from putting "unsightly" antennas on the outside of my home, should they be able to do so? If three people in a precinct would like to put up antennas, and fifty people don't want to look at such antennas, should the majority win?
I'm just trying to figure out a sense in which Internet traffic is not a matter of "interstate commerce". Perhaps you'd like to require all commercial routers to support policy based on geographic end-point location, so that they can properly implement local laws?
Yes, and good luck getting any satisfaction out of them if your line quality limited you to 1200bps or so. "You're paying for a voice line, and that's what you've got. If you want a data line, we'll put you in touch with our business department, who will be happy to set you up with something five or six times as expensive."
Funny story. When I first got DSL, back in 1999 or 2000, I (a) really wanted to stick with my cool existing dialup ISP, and (b) really wanted a static IP. My landline provider, Verizon, was happy to sell me DSL for $49/mo, but with dynamic IP and none of the awesomeness my current ISP provided (static IP, shell access to the email/Web host, etc, etc). Fortunately, thanks to the laws then in place, my ISP was able to offer DSL access over my Verizon line -- still giving me static IP, and letting me keep my existing accounts, all at the same $49/mo.
UNfortunately, Verizon back-charged my ISP something like $32.50/mo. for DSL access, so my ISP was suddenly getting $17.50/mo from me for an always-on DSL line's worth of traffic, where before they'd been getting $25/mo for a most-of-the-time-on dial-up connection's worth of traffic. They got to keep a faithful customer, so yay, but they lost revenue and increased expenses. I'm not sure how many others followed in my footsteps, or how much of a difference it made to the company, but they finally folded up and stole away in the wake of an ice-storm in 2002.
So, open access sounds like a great thing for consumers -- assuming the entrenched monopolists/duopolists can't find a way to make it economically untenable, while still complying with the letter of the law. Of course, the only way that could happen is if the telcos and cablecos could somehow exert influence over the content of said law. Good thing that never happens.
For any dose above normal, two separate keys should have to be turned, separated in time by 30 minutes (so if a hospital was stupid enough to give the same person both keys, they have a half hour to think). Any dosage above normal should require being entered three times.
Perhaps the machine could also provide some sort of simple video game to entertain the patient while everyone's waiting on the 30-minute lockout. Of course, it would have to get easier toward the end, as the brain damage from unchecked bleeding accumulates...
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. The story was true. I still occasionally get the urge to put together a cheap box for something or other, and GP was informative to me, at least.
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. They might be trying to preemptively throttle competition. But based on past performance, I'm thinking that this is probably just routine dickery.
Use open source, get cutting edge things.
The last time I tried to build an Intel box for Linux work, I lost my grip on the cheap generic case, and sustained a cut that sent me to the emergency room. One of the things I like about my Mac is the lack of cutting edges.
There's no particular reason a continuous input at a given frequency can't cause oscillations which increase until something breaks.
Yes, there is. It's called "dissipation".
As something wiggles, it tends to leak energy into its mounting points or the medium surrounding it. In some cases, like Tacoma Narrows, energy can't dissipate as quickly as it accumulates, and that's when you get structural failure. Engineers strive to predict these vibrational modes and design their structures so that dissipation will always exceed accumulation before the resonance causes damage.
Well, since every gram of tissue in your body is constantly emitting blackbody terahertz waves, I guess you're screwed, then.
... will drive evolution of all languages toward vocabulary and syntax that's less prone to embarrassing or dangerous misinterpretation?
I used to wonder if voice recognition would drive a big shift in pronunciation patterns, but now I expect that automatic voice recognition will outstrip human voice recognition before that can happen. Maybe the same thing will happen with translation, too.
Develop a robust, redundant code around substituting two spaces for one after a period/full stop, or adding spaces at the end of a paragraph. Or occasionally substitute em- and en-spaces. It accomplishes the goal, and it doesn't vandalize the source.
I certainly hope there's more than enough backlash to kill the idea of changing words. Otherwise, after ten or twenty more years of natural-language understanding research, we're going to see them trying to do the same thing with plots, or character development.
Geeze! Do you want them to ban all batteries?
It's a bit difficult to see how anybody could make a profit off mandatory vaccination of health workers. There's an extreme shortage of N1H1 vaccine, so any that actually gets made is going to be sold and used
You know, if I could pass along the "insightful" points from my post to yours, I would. I'm not sure why I didn't see this myself.
If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions.
You know what else is constructed of and by human DNA?
A teratoma.
A malignant tumor.
Fingernail clippings.
Cultured human tissue grown outside the body.
Which of these are you prepared to accord "personhood"?
I actually meant "mouse embryos", since that's what TFA and our lab's work was about. Yes, zebrafish are easier -- in fact, you can get varieties that stay transparent into adulthood, which opens all sorts of possibilities. But there are a lot of things you can do in mouse models that you can't do in fish or whatnot.
Yeah, and if you've got repeating motion, you can sort of patch together a 4D image (3D over time). Alex's atlas is actually 4D, although the different timepoints were necessarily from different specimens. (And obviously not isotropic on time -- to get a true 4D isotropic dataset, our 19.5 micron/voxel spatial resolution would demand 65-femtosecond temporal resolution, which is (a) physically impossible and (b) of no use to an anatomist.)
You can get arbitrarily good images of fixed (dead) embryos, but live imaging using any method is damn tough, and live 3D imaging at this resolution is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Motion makes it nearly impossible to do MR or CT 3D imaging. You can gate against the cardiac cycle to image a single animal, but nobody can yet gate against a fetal heartbeat in a mouse. I'm not even sure if that would be enough, because the maternal heartbeat contributes significant motion, too.
One of our doctoral students did a 3D atlas of the embryonic mouse using MR microscopy. These were fixed specimens, but they're isotropic (the same spatial resolution in all three dimensions), and nobody's come close to matching our resolution as far as I know. Part of her work was looking at cardiac septal defects, which you pretty much have to study in embryos, because they aren't compatible with live birth.
One drawback of OCT is that it fails if you have to go through much tissue. Mice are tiny enough to make this work possible, but I don't think there's any way you could do it in humans, short of inserting a source/detector into the uterus, which kind of spoils the whole "non-invasive" feature.
Tell you what. Instead of spending my time "rebutting" the unending stream of drivel that I'm sure you can dredge up, I'll just give you this advice:
If you'd like to make your medical decisions based on contrarian rants from ninteen twenty-three, be my guest. Please feel free to abstain from then-nonexistent antibiotics. Heck, feel free to discard the entire "germ theory of disease." The more thoroughly you reject the benefits of modern medicine, the sooner the gene pool will be rid of you.
H1N1 may indeed be pandemic in NYS, but it's still not as prevalent as corruption.
My real concern is that early transfer techniques will be piss-poor and not copy all synaptic connections, leading to early transfers not being themselves, and people dismissing the whole technology as evil and worthless.
Some will. But think about people who suffer traumatic brain injury. They're "not themselves" afterward, they often suffer horribly, and they might face impairments for the rest of their lives -- but the majority of them are still grateful to be alive. Most people -- not all, but most -- would choose continued life with some impairment over certain death.
Some people will be "early adopters" for this kind of pseudo-immortality, and some people will never accept it. But I imagine the largest class will want to wait as long as they can, risking the chance of death, to let the techniques advance as far as possible. I think that's the class in which I'd find myself.
Sleep. Your stream of conscious experience stops when you go to sleep, and resumes when you wake up. Sure, there's some brain activity during sleep -- but during the deepest phases, there's nothing like "consciousness". In fact, given the consolidation processes and whatnot that happen during sleep, you could make a very convincing argument that the person who wakes up in your body tomorrow morning will not be the "you" that falls asleep tonight.
Sweet dreams!
Does it please you to believe I am guessing that a new nlp ai has been given mod points?
...coadminister with tetraethyl lead.
</WHOOSH>
(pls mod GP funny, kthx)
There is no compelling reason to create an interstate authority to deal with something as physically local as wires between your house and a network switch a mile away. There were some good reasons for creating the FCC, and none of those reasons apply here.
Let me float this analogy. The FCC regulates and licenses the wireless spectrum. Should local governments, since they're so much more representative and responsive, be able to impose their own regulations instead? If I'm transmitting in a range that's only line-of-sight, why is it the Federal government's business? If my local government wants to prohibit me from putting "unsightly" antennas on the outside of my home, should they be able to do so? If three people in a precinct would like to put up antennas, and fifty people don't want to look at such antennas, should the majority win?
I'm just trying to figure out a sense in which Internet traffic is not a matter of "interstate commerce". Perhaps you'd like to require all commercial routers to support policy based on geographic end-point location, so that they can properly implement local laws?
Yes, and good luck getting any satisfaction out of them if your line quality limited you to 1200bps or so. "You're paying for a voice line, and that's what you've got. If you want a data line, we'll put you in touch with our business department, who will be happy to set you up with something five or six times as expensive."
You're right, of course. Thanks for clarifying. ~~~~
Funny story. When I first got DSL, back in 1999 or 2000, I (a) really wanted to stick with my cool existing dialup ISP, and (b) really wanted a static IP. My landline provider, Verizon, was happy to sell me DSL for $49/mo, but with dynamic IP and none of the awesomeness my current ISP provided (static IP, shell access to the email/Web host, etc, etc). Fortunately, thanks to the laws then in place, my ISP was able to offer DSL access over my Verizon line -- still giving me static IP, and letting me keep my existing accounts, all at the same $49/mo.
UNfortunately, Verizon back-charged my ISP something like $32.50/mo. for DSL access, so my ISP was suddenly getting $17.50/mo from me for an always-on DSL line's worth of traffic, where before they'd been getting $25/mo for a most-of-the-time-on dial-up connection's worth of traffic. They got to keep a faithful customer, so yay, but they lost revenue and increased expenses. I'm not sure how many others followed in my footsteps, or how much of a difference it made to the company, but they finally folded up and stole away in the wake of an ice-storm in 2002.
So, open access sounds like a great thing for consumers -- assuming the entrenched monopolists/duopolists can't find a way to make it economically untenable, while still complying with the letter of the law. Of course, the only way that could happen is if the telcos and cablecos could somehow exert influence over the content of said law. Good thing that never happens.
For any dose above normal, two separate keys should have to be turned, separated in time by 30 minutes (so if a hospital was stupid enough to give the same person both keys, they have a half hour to think). Any dosage above normal should require being entered three times.
Perhaps the machine could also provide some sort of simple video game to entertain the patient while everyone's waiting on the 30-minute lockout. Of course, it would have to get easier toward the end, as the brain damage from unchecked bleeding accumulates...