More importantly, they could be a "misfiring" of some other, tangentially related (beneficial) characteristic. It is in fact very important to understand the biology underlining of those things to prevent them (the genocide, that is -- preventing homosexuality is a bizarre religious obsession)
These are not models in the sense that the Ether Theory was a model. You build gene regulation networks by accumulating data on what gene acts as a promoter/repressor of another and what are the activation cascades.
No one will ever invalidate that work through an experiment -- some of the network might be revised, but it is not the case that someone will come up with some experimental proof that there is no such thing as a gene expression network, which would be the equivalent of the MM experiment.
You could say that you are building a model in the physical science sense if you could look at your network and say: there must be a gene/gene group that acts here, here and here, because this is how the kinetics of the system are when stressed, and the network I built does not have the required dynamics. Now maybe this is what you are doing, and in which case I apologise, but in my limited experience, such papers are few and far between, and are certainly not bio_med_ papers (bioinformatics seem to be mostly about producing pretty pictures for most other biologists -- sad but true).
In biomed, there are not models to invalidate. the Michelson-Morley was significant because it proved that a model of the universe was wrong. To do the equivalent in biomed would require someone to have a model in the first place...
The problem with biomed research is that the field is rife with people who don't understand models. Biomed research is not really science in that we are not yet at the point where we can express mathematical models to make predictions which are then falsified or not.
All too often, it is a case of "I knock down/over-express a gene, find that it does something, and then make up some bullshit where I pretend it'll cure cancer". In many cases, articles get published because the reviewers don't say "this claim is not supported by your experiment (purely on the grounds of the claim being logically inconsistent)" or, "you say this thing is happenning, why the fuck did you not quantify it? (See, you claim this thing disappeared, what are the odds your method is just not sensitive enough?)".
This pepperred with idiots who put gaussian error bars on numbers of cells, which ought to be a motive of immediate rejection. No, I am not bitter.
So much is wrong in your comment. a) This is about consumer protection. You don't get to lie to customers in Europe, even if you are more akin to a cult. b) The bailout of Greece is not funded by the EU, but by state actors and the IMF. That means that you, even if you are American, are bailing out the Greeks. c) If Apple decided to not sell stuff in Europe, they would lose a lot of money, and their market share would collapse to the benefit of google. Which would be bad for them.
Also, you need to get off the libertarian crack: if all "job creators" all left at once, they would be replaced almost instantly...
there you idiot, the vast majority of cases is against companies in the EU. The Comission's role is the functionning of the internal market. If you want to see action against US companies for petty nationalistic reasons, look at the WTO cases.
Also, it is Apple's subsidiary in Europe which is being sued.
I understand that for a US citizen it is difficult to comprehend the concept of good market regulation and going after companies which try to fuck over the consumer, but this is the way it works in the EU. The Commission, for all its defects, does one thing well: market regulation in the domains where it is allowed to regulate the market.
No, Although I sympathise with the notion that more people ought to be stalwartly and adamantly in favour of personal freedom, libertarians are not adding anything to the conversation. They operate on the fundamental principle that no-one should even try to stop dickheads from being dickheads because PERSONAL FREEDOM and MARKET WILL SELF-CORRECT.
This is nothing to do with personal freedom: this is just the expression of a wannabe psychopath angry that he cannot follow his impulses. But not all libertarians are like that. Some have been lucky in life, and they deeply want to believe they are successful because of their efforts, and not their circumstances. Think middle-aged white guy in a gated community.
Fundamentally, libertarian do not understand that their cherished market and contract law needs to be enforced. Enforced by an entity powerful enough for that: the government, and that the government to be legitimate and powerful enough, needs to stem from the will of the people, and be large enough, and that the people might think that the dog-eat-dog world of the libertarians is not what they desire. So deep down, libertarians wish that their perfectly free world be enforced by a fascist dictatorship.
If in space warfare one side uses crewed ships, they deserve to lose. Also, I expect that with advanced manufacturing, the ships would be constructed atom per atom. It might be that the economics of it makes the building of ships pretty much exactly as expensive as the building of decoys.
And then, of course, any FTL tech causes interesting things to happen if anyone actually exploits it. Imagine synchronising a grid of energy beams from a single ship, and then jumping close to your opponent for a dogfight were you use this information -- information which your opponent cannot have. What if he does the same, and preemptively tries to interdict your firing? Now everything becomes a question of calculating probabilities, and the ship with the fastest computer wins.
kwin is fully scriptable -- how much more power do you need than per-window/window class/app rules?. Also, it only does its job of managing windows, and the rest is taken care of by the desktop. Enlightenment is a wm+launchers+set of apps but refuses to admit it would like to be a DE like XFCE. They can't admit that because OMG BLOAT!
xmonad is a very interesting experiment, which some people find great. But these are the same people who think that the purpose of X is having more terminal windows open at the same time -- or their spiritual descendants.
I used the word battleship advisedly. This is exactly what I meant, because this is exactly how people imagine naval warfare to happen. I well know that all-big-guns battles have not taken place in the last 60 years.
Same thing when you are forced on OSX. Seriously, KDE has the best window manager bar none. How no one has gone postal on the MS and apple folks responsible for that part of their respective interfaces s a mystery to me.
And good network-transparent file managers (and file dialogs). And a wallet to remember your passports. And desktop search, and integrated utilities. And app launchers more clever than xterm, and the magic that is alt-F2 with launchers. Seriously, under KDE, you can do "Alt-F2 ; =1V*1A" and it answers 1W. How cool is that ?
I think this must have happened because those ships and planes look more like the ideal image one has of a battleship or fighter planes.
Because modern warfare does not look like that: drones look like they are out of science-fiction movies. Ships don't have those big easily-recognisable guns -- launchers are way more effective, but just look like unexciting trapdoors. They could have gone with a big carrier: that really says US projection power.
But in the end, who cares? it's a fake image designed to elicit emotions, not a documentary. It says "we care about our soldiers and our art department can't tell which is the business end of any military hardware". Which is OK, because presumably the art department is not invited to give its opinion on military matters.
You want to sack Barroso? Easy, vote for the ESP or ALDE. If the majority of the EP is to the left, the president of the commission will come from their ranks. Currently, the conservatives are the largest block, and so Barroso is the president.
Of course, you are a Brit, so in any case, you can vote Labour, and that goes towards the ESP, or Lib Dem, and that goes towards the ALDE. If you vote Tory, well, you are helping the EP block containing the fascists and crazies -- it's true, they decided themselves they were not a mainstream conservative party in Europe.
I guess that explains the way they are running the country, no?
Different corporations have different personalities. Not like people, but there are still things you expect from apple more than from google, for example. Case in point, apple have a borderline OCD-type control-freak personality. There relation to what they consider theirs is very much akin to the relation between Gollum and the One Ring...
So yeah, you should hit harder on Apple for their dumb lawsuits, because they don't just do it to maximise their profit. They do it out of spite, way beyond what makes any kind of financial sense. Also, they always have been like this: MS won the desktop wars in the 90s because they were more open. Microsoft. Because they needed Open Source to not die, they had to do things that run completely against their DNA. Thus the KHTML-Webkit debacle. Thus their pushing LLVM. They cannot cooperate: they need to control. People, I think, are waking up to that.
Google is not like that. Their crazy obsession is knowing everything about you in a sort of creepy-voyeur kind of way. They see themselves as a benevolent Big Brother. This is a completely different kind of psychopathology. They will give you a gigabit connection to the internet and let you do anything with it. But you have to share your pr0n with them...
So you see no difference between an elected administration and a private entity with no democratic oversight?
At the end of the day, the reason why companies are let doing perfectly dickish things in the US is people believe that the government would be worse. And so vote for people who promise they'll let companies be dicks.
Of course! Vigilantism as a way to ensure justice! how can I not see the brilliance of your scheme?
If someone is accused a specific wrongdoing which falls under the law, you can get a warrant to obtain the communications. If not, well, tough shit, you don't get to annoy people just because you don't like them or their ideas.
Ahhh, "think of the children!", "what about pedophiles?".
I have no idea who those guys are, and have no interest to know. Communications are private, and should be private, and that is the end of it. You want to snoop? get a judge to sign you a warrant. Thinking that people paid with public money somehow renounce their rights to privacy is ludicrous and idiotic.
There is a process to follow in the case of suspicions of wrongdoing, and this is the "due" process. And in no case is it the business of Justice to decide on the correctness of academic works, be they medical research, historical research or climate research. What this whole sad affair is is nothing less than conservative pressure on researchers so that they stop finding stuff that is not ideologically vetted.
Any correspondence, of anyone, can be quoted out of context. Targeting researchers working on climate change, demanding that they give you an easy source of mud for you to dig through, hoping you can score points in the press and with your political friends?
This is intimidation, nothing less. Not to mention the fact that responding to these demands takes enormous amounts of time, which does indeed prevent the researcher from doing his job. This is exactly like those frivolous DMCA notices we love to hate on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
More importantly, they could be a "misfiring" of some other, tangentially related (beneficial) characteristic. It is in fact very important to understand the biology underlining of those things to prevent them (the genocide, that is -- preventing homosexuality is a bizarre religious obsession)
These are not models in the sense that the Ether Theory was a model. You build gene regulation networks by accumulating data on what gene acts as a promoter/repressor of another and what are the activation cascades.
No one will ever invalidate that work through an experiment -- some of the network might be revised, but it is not the case that someone will come up with some experimental proof that there is no such thing as a gene expression network, which would be the equivalent of the MM experiment.
You could say that you are building a model in the physical science sense if you could look at your network and say: there must be a gene/gene group that acts here, here and here, because this is how the kinetics of the system are when stressed, and the network I built does not have the required dynamics. Now maybe this is what you are doing, and in which case I apologise, but in my limited experience, such papers are few and far between, and are certainly not bio_med_ papers (bioinformatics seem to be mostly about producing pretty pictures for most other biologists -- sad but true).
In biomed, there are not models to invalidate. the Michelson-Morley was significant because it proved that a model of the universe was wrong. To do the equivalent in biomed would require someone to have a model in the first place...
The problem with biomed research is that the field is rife with people who don't understand models. Biomed research is not really science in that we are not yet at the point where we can express mathematical models to make predictions which are then falsified or not.
All too often, it is a case of "I knock down/over-express a gene, find that it does something, and then make up some bullshit where I pretend it'll cure cancer". In many cases, articles get published because the reviewers don't say "this claim is not supported by your experiment (purely on the grounds of the claim being logically inconsistent)" or, "you say this thing is happenning, why the fuck did you not quantify it? (See, you claim this thing disappeared, what are the odds your method is just not sensitive enough?)".
This pepperred with idiots who put gaussian error bars on numbers of cells, which ought to be a motive of immediate rejection. No, I am not bitter.
This implies that an extra -5 scientists entered.
So much is wrong in your comment. a) This is about consumer protection. You don't get to lie to customers in Europe, even if you are more akin to a cult. b) The bailout of Greece is not funded by the EU, but by state actors and the IMF. That means that you, even if you are American, are bailing out the Greeks. c) If Apple decided to not sell stuff in Europe, they would lose a lot of money, and their market share would collapse to the benefit of google. Which would be bad for them.
Also, you need to get off the libertarian crack: if all "job creators" all left at once, they would be replaced almost instantly...
there you idiot, the vast majority of cases is against companies in the EU. The Comission's role is the functionning of the internal market. If you want to see action against US companies for petty nationalistic reasons, look at the WTO cases.
Also, it is Apple's subsidiary in Europe which is being sued.
I understand that for a US citizen it is difficult to comprehend the concept of good market regulation and going after companies which try to fuck over the consumer, but this is the way it works in the EU. The Commission, for all its defects, does one thing well: market regulation in the domains where it is allowed to regulate the market.
No, Although I sympathise with the notion that more people ought to be stalwartly and adamantly in favour of personal freedom, libertarians are not adding anything to the conversation. They operate on the fundamental principle that no-one should even try to stop dickheads from being dickheads because PERSONAL FREEDOM and MARKET WILL SELF-CORRECT.
This is nothing to do with personal freedom: this is just the expression of a wannabe psychopath angry that he cannot follow his impulses. But not all libertarians are like that. Some have been lucky in life, and they deeply want to believe they are successful because of their efforts, and not their circumstances. Think middle-aged white guy in a gated community.
Fundamentally, libertarian do not understand that their cherished market and contract law needs to be enforced. Enforced by an entity powerful enough for that: the government, and that the government to be legitimate and powerful enough, needs to stem from the will of the people, and be large enough, and that the people might think that the dog-eat-dog world of the libertarians is not what they desire. So deep down, libertarians wish that their perfectly free world be enforced by a fascist dictatorship.
If in space warfare one side uses crewed ships, they deserve to lose. Also, I expect that with advanced manufacturing, the ships would be constructed atom per atom. It might be that the economics of it makes the building of ships pretty much exactly as expensive as the building of decoys.
And then, of course, any FTL tech causes interesting things to happen if anyone actually exploits it. Imagine synchronising a grid of energy beams from a single ship, and then jumping close to your opponent for a dogfight were you use this information -- information which your opponent cannot have. What if he does the same, and preemptively tries to interdict your firing? Now everything becomes a question of calculating probabilities, and the ship with the fastest computer wins.
But Viet Nam was very nearly 60 years ago...
kwin is fully scriptable -- how much more power do you need than per-window/window class/app rules?. Also, it only does its job of managing windows, and the rest is taken care of by the desktop. Enlightenment is a wm+launchers+set of apps but refuses to admit it would like to be a DE like XFCE. They can't admit that because OMG BLOAT!
xmonad is a very interesting experiment, which some people find great. But these are the same people who think that the purpose of X is having more terminal windows open at the same time -- or their spiritual descendants.
I stand corrected.
I used the word battleship advisedly. This is exactly what I meant, because this is exactly how people imagine naval warfare to happen. I well know that all-big-guns battles have not taken place in the last 60 years.
Same thing when you are forced on OSX. Seriously, KDE has the best window manager bar none. How no one has gone postal on the MS and apple folks responsible for that part of their respective interfaces s a mystery to me.
And good network-transparent file managers (and file dialogs). And a wallet to remember your passports. And desktop search, and integrated utilities. And app launchers more clever than xterm, and the magic that is alt-F2 with launchers. Seriously, under KDE, you can do "Alt-F2 ; =1V*1A" and it answers 1W. How cool is that ?
I think this must have happened because those ships and planes look more like the ideal image one has of a battleship or fighter planes.
Because modern warfare does not look like that: drones look like they are out of science-fiction movies. Ships don't have those big easily-recognisable guns -- launchers are way more effective, but just look like unexciting trapdoors. They could have gone with a big carrier: that really says US projection power.
But in the end, who cares? it's a fake image designed to elicit emotions, not a documentary. It says "we care about our soldiers and our art department can't tell which is the business end of any military hardware". Which is OK, because presumably the art department is not invited to give its opinion on military matters.
You want to sack Barroso? Easy, vote for the ESP or ALDE. If the majority of the EP is to the left, the president of the commission will come from their ranks. Currently, the conservatives are the largest block, and so Barroso is the president.
Of course, you are a Brit, so in any case, you can vote Labour, and that goes towards the ESP, or Lib Dem, and that goes towards the ALDE. If you vote Tory, well, you are helping the EP block containing the fascists and crazies -- it's true, they decided themselves they were not a mainstream conservative party in Europe.
I guess that explains the way they are running the country, no?
This money is added to the central budget of the EU.
Different corporations have different personalities. Not like people, but there are still things you expect from apple more than from google, for example. Case in point, apple have a borderline OCD-type control-freak personality. There relation to what they consider theirs is very much akin to the relation between Gollum and the One Ring...
So yeah, you should hit harder on Apple for their dumb lawsuits, because they don't just do it to maximise their profit. They do it out of spite, way beyond what makes any kind of financial sense. Also, they always have been like this: MS won the desktop wars in the 90s because they were more open. Microsoft. Because they needed Open Source to not die, they had to do things that run completely against their DNA. Thus the KHTML-Webkit debacle. Thus their pushing LLVM. They cannot cooperate: they need to control. People, I think, are waking up to that.
Google is not like that. Their crazy obsession is knowing everything about you in a sort of creepy-voyeur kind of way. They see themselves as a benevolent Big Brother. This is a completely different kind of psychopathology. They will give you a gigabit connection to the internet and let you do anything with it. But you have to share your pr0n with them...
So you see no difference between an elected administration and a private entity with no democratic oversight?
At the end of the day, the reason why companies are let doing perfectly dickish things in the US is people believe that the government would be worse. And so vote for people who promise they'll let companies be dicks.
The stupid, it hurts.
Interesting... I cannot tell whether you are making a joke or not.
In case you are not, you might want to stop drinking the kool-aid.
Maybe I am not an American and have no interest whatsoever in "football" (either kind really)?
Of course! Vigilantism as a way to ensure justice! how can I not see the brilliance of your scheme?
If someone is accused a specific wrongdoing which falls under the law, you can get a warrant to obtain the communications. If not, well, tough shit, you don't get to annoy people just because you don't like them or their ideas.
Ahhh, "think of the children!", "what about pedophiles?".
I have no idea who those guys are, and have no interest to know. Communications are private, and should be private, and that is the end of it. You want to snoop? get a judge to sign you a warrant. Thinking that people paid with public money somehow renounce their rights to privacy is ludicrous and idiotic.
There is a process to follow in the case of suspicions of wrongdoing, and this is the "due" process. And in no case is it the business of Justice to decide on the correctness of academic works, be they medical research, historical research or climate research. What this whole sad affair is is nothing less than conservative pressure on researchers so that they stop finding stuff that is not ideologically vetted.
Any correspondence, of anyone, can be quoted out of context. Targeting researchers working on climate change, demanding that they give you an easy source of mud for you to dig through, hoping you can score points in the press and with your political friends?
This is intimidation, nothing less. Not to mention the fact that responding to these demands takes enormous amounts of time, which does indeed prevent the researcher from doing his job. This is exactly like those frivolous DMCA notices we love to hate on slashdot.