This has been a semantic argument since the first reply telling you that you're using words wrong. Your response: "We can play words games if you like... I'm quite good at them. But I frankly find the prospect to be boring. So I'll just win."
Data's meaning is made accessible through analysis. Absent analysis, its meaning may be obscured or unintelligible, but it's in there regardless of if we observe it. The data sharing initiative from the article is allowing future researchers the chance to find that meaning in the data.
I agree that defining terms is important. FYI, I think you should consult a external reference for a definition of meaningful, as you did much higher up the thread with "data". Your usage of the word seems unusually specific, specifically the "automatically" part referring to data without further analysis. Collecting and analyzing data is what researchers do, so requiring data to be useful without analysis is baffling. Several commenters have tried to correct your definition.
Even data without pristine integrity can be collected and analyzed to create something meaningful. For an example of that, how about neurosynth.org - this uses an automatic scraper to collect coordinates from published neuroimaging papers. The scraper does as scrapers do and collects all sorts of false positives, so many of the "coordinates" are in fact not. The overall result produces very strong results.
Well, I think I've caught the flu, but yes, I'm generally happy. Thanks for the concern. Glad to hear you are too, buddy.
One question though, does your happiness have anything to do with this semantics argument? If so, don't write them off as boring. Seek them out! Follow your bliss!
Some people use their accelerometer data as a pedometer, some don't. Is the data meaningful or not? Whether data is meaningful, or useful or significant (all are fine with me) is subjective. Accelerometer data is not meaningful to you? Fine. But, you are not the arbiter of what is meaningful.
On the other hand, if you'd like an example of data which is (nearly?) universally recognized as meaningless, how about/dev/random > data.txt?
These features sound like they're covered by HomeKit, Bluetooth, AirDrop, iMessage, etc.
Sure, it'd be nice for developers to get access to this new hardware. There is a security cost though, to opening up the hardware, which might not be an acceptable loss. Especially since there are other ways to get the benefits you listed.
MRI is considered to be for passive viewing - I is for imaging. With TMS, on the other hand, the S is stimulation. It's intended to create an electrical response in specific areas of your brain using a specially shaped and targeted magnetic paddle. It's not that magnetism in general is beneficial. It's just that magnetism was used in the specifically targeted electrical stimulation. The benefit of using magnetism with TMS is that the stimulation is indirect - it doesn't require wires and brain surgery, just a paddle pressed against your scalp.
Your story sounds like either the placebo effect or coincidental timing.
MRI is considered to be for passive viewing - I is for imaging.
With TMS, on the other hand, the S is stimulation. It's intended to create an electrical response in specific areas of your brain using a specially shaped and targeted magnetic paddle. It's not that magnetism in general is beneficial. It's just that magnetism was used in the specifically targeted electrical stimulation. The benefit of using magnetism with TMS is that the stimulation is indirect - it doesn't require wires and brain surgery, just a paddle pressed against your scalp.
Not many districts have such "extreme" candidates available. And even if they do, the deficit spending issue is wrapped up with all the other issues of the candidate. I think it's fairer to say that centrist voters do not often choose deficit spending as their key issue.
I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.
"Mind reading", yet calling the story flamebait...ironic.
You told me what I truly WANT in all caps, but have issues with me characterizing that as "mind reading"?
The summary is accurate. If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC.
Citation needed.
Apple doesn't seem to care...<snipped>... Apple certainly would take the opportunity to say "Nuh uh"...<snipped>... Apple didn't claim one. You're using "Citation needed" to ask for the assertion of something that doesn't exist?
You state that the article and summary must be accurate or there would be an issue on file with the EC. I asked for some support of this statement. I have no idea what your response meant. Are you okay? Let's try this a little more explicitly...
The EC and Google are doing some business. It is only tangentially related to Apple, in that the EC is taking this opportunity to say something incendiary about Apple, that they have "done nothing." The Verge (linked to in the summary) says that the EC is off base in this assertion and mentions ways that Apple has done things in the past and more ways they have announced in iOS 8.
The fact that Apple is included in the summary at all, but especially by repeating the EC's flamebait without comment or even the context of "(The EC says) Apple has done nothing" makes me think the summary is also flamebait. A little context would have been easy to add and clarified the story, but it was not added. I believe this was done to get a rise out of people. It worked on me and printman.
The summary can be both accurate and incendiary. Being flamebait does not mean it is inaccurate.
In this case, the EC considers the actions Apple has made to be insufficient. That's a less biased way to state the same information than "Apple has done nothing" is.
If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC.
Citation needed. Why do assume that the EC is functioning at perfect efficiency? There is no situation in which there isn't a filed issue?
You WANT Apple to be in the right...
Citation needed. I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.
This is exactly right. The article at TheVerge even states this:
Apple has also agreed to make changes at the behest of the commission, but it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. This is much to the commission's disapproval, but Apple doesn't seem particular concerned. In a statement to the BBC, Apple actually says that it's doing "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases, pointing specifically to the upcoming iOS 8 feature Ask to Buy, which prevents children from making purchases and instead allows them to send that purchase to a parent for approval.
In other words, both the top-down and the bottom-up scenarios play a role, but the bottom-up, by virtue of starting smaller, gets a head start by millions of years!
Neuroscience is a whole field dedicated to learning how the brain works. Do you really think that there has never been a video made of whole-brain neuronal activity? Ever heard of fMRI? That's the most common way to track activity over time, which - guess what - makes a video. There are many other imaging modalities which can be used to measure activity over time.
It's the first time this method was used to make a whole-brain record of activity. And it's cute that it uses visible light instead of magnetism or radioactive decay, but that certainly doesn't make it the only video.
OSX is a fine windowing system, but it's a little rough around the hedges when it comes to usability for the portion of the world that simply cannot become Apple converts.
Wouldn't this cause a rain shadow? The midwest would stop being useful farm land if all the moisture coming from the gulf stopped at the north end of Texas...
Apple IDs can be set to require two-factor authentication. Microsoft and Google may implement their killswitches and authentication differently. We'll have to wait and see.
You don't want a killswitch because you think the cost of an unauthorized use outweighs the benefit of an authorized use. Other people have other opinions. Many businesses, for example, require such features on devices they supply to their employees. So... perhaps your estimation of the likelihood of getting mis-used could be a little off?
Computing devices lend themselves to such features. Pants, wallets and whiskey do not. I'm not sure where you're going with this part. Also, the politician mentioned in the article is a local district attorney discussing local thefts and prosecutions, not a federal politician. You seem to think this is a government mandate, but don't provide any support for this.
I was wondering about the trolling because of the strangely aggressive tone towards victims of theft, not your purchasing preferences. I no longer think you're trolling, just sharing your verbose ill-informed opinions. Have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't the one who required analysis for there to be meaning, that was your position.
I'll take vulgarity as conceit.
Data is simply information. Information contains meaning.
:)
information
[in-fer-mey-shuh] noun
1. knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance
Have a nice day!
This has been a semantic argument since the first reply telling you that you're using words wrong. Your response: "We can play words games if you like... I'm quite good at them. But I frankly find the prospect to be boring. So I'll just win."
Best of luck finding something to interest you.
Actually, you said if it was a semantics argument you would "just win".
Data is simply information. Information is meaningful.
But yes, have a nice day.
Data's meaning is made accessible through analysis. Absent analysis, its meaning may be obscured or unintelligible, but it's in there regardless of if we observe it. The data sharing initiative from the article is allowing future researchers the chance to find that meaning in the data.
I agree that defining terms is important. FYI, I think you should consult a external reference for a definition of meaningful, as you did much higher up the thread with "data". Your usage of the word seems unusually specific, specifically the "automatically" part referring to data without further analysis. Collecting and analyzing data is what researchers do, so requiring data to be useful without analysis is baffling. Several commenters have tried to correct your definition.
Even data without pristine integrity can be collected and analyzed to create something meaningful. For an example of that, how about neurosynth.org - this uses an automatic scraper to collect coordinates from published neuroimaging papers. The scraper does as scrapers do and collects all sorts of false positives, so many of the "coordinates" are in fact not. The overall result produces very strong results.
Well, I think I've caught the flu, but yes, I'm generally happy. Thanks for the concern. Glad to hear you are too, buddy.
One question though, does your happiness have anything to do with this semantics argument? If so, don't write them off as boring. Seek them out! Follow your bliss!
> how about /dev/random > data.txt
Unless, of course, you happen to have a need for some random data. Then it's useful.
Some people use their accelerometer data as a pedometer, some don't. Is the data meaningful or not? Whether data is meaningful, or useful or significant (all are fine with me) is subjective. Accelerometer data is not meaningful to you? Fine. But, you are not the arbiter of what is meaningful.
/dev/random > data.txt?
On the other hand, if you'd like an example of data which is (nearly?) universally recognized as meaningless, how about
I can set the output of my phone's accelerometer to output to a spreadsheet... then record the data. Will the data mean anything?
Of course it will! The data will convey how much your phone as moved. Why do you think that this data is meaningless? Perhaps you mean "useful"?
These features sound like they're covered by HomeKit, Bluetooth, AirDrop, iMessage, etc.
Sure, it'd be nice for developers to get access to this new hardware. There is a security cost though, to opening up the hardware, which might not be an acceptable loss. Especially since there are other ways to get the benefits you listed.
Listen Apple, you didn't build a phone that people wanted
Pretty funny considering the incredible demand.
MRI is considered to be for passive viewing - I is for imaging. With TMS, on the other hand, the S is stimulation. It's intended to create an electrical response in specific areas of your brain using a specially shaped and targeted magnetic paddle. It's not that magnetism in general is beneficial. It's just that magnetism was used in the specifically targeted electrical stimulation. The benefit of using magnetism with TMS is that the stimulation is indirect - it doesn't require wires and brain surgery, just a paddle pressed against your scalp. Your story sounds like either the placebo effect or coincidental timing.
MRI is considered to be for passive viewing - I is for imaging. With TMS, on the other hand, the S is stimulation. It's intended to create an electrical response in specific areas of your brain using a specially shaped and targeted magnetic paddle. It's not that magnetism in general is beneficial. It's just that magnetism was used in the specifically targeted electrical stimulation. The benefit of using magnetism with TMS is that the stimulation is indirect - it doesn't require wires and brain surgery, just a paddle pressed against your scalp.
Not many districts have such "extreme" candidates available. And even if they do, the deficit spending issue is wrapped up with all the other issues of the candidate. I think it's fairer to say that centrist voters do not often choose deficit spending as their key issue.
You WANT Apple to be in the right...
I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.
"Mind reading", yet calling the story flamebait...ironic.
You told me what I truly WANT in all caps, but have issues with me characterizing that as "mind reading"?
The summary is accurate. If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC.
Citation needed.
Apple doesn't seem to care...<snipped>... Apple certainly would take the opportunity to say "Nuh uh"...<snipped>... Apple didn't claim one. You're using "Citation needed" to ask for the assertion of something that doesn't exist?
You state that the article and summary must be accurate or there would be an issue on file with the EC. I asked for some support of this statement. I have no idea what your response meant. Are you okay? Let's try this a little more explicitly...
The EC and Google are doing some business. It is only tangentially related to Apple, in that the EC is taking this opportunity to say something incendiary about Apple, that they have "done nothing." The Verge (linked to in the summary) says that the EC is off base in this assertion and mentions ways that Apple has done things in the past and more ways they have announced in iOS 8.
The fact that Apple is included in the summary at all, but especially by repeating the EC's flamebait without comment or even the context of "(The EC says) Apple has done nothing" makes me think the summary is also flamebait. A little context would have been easy to add and clarified the story, but it was not added. I believe this was done to get a rise out of people. It worked on me and printman.
The summary is accurate.
The summary can be both accurate and incendiary. Being flamebait does not mean it is inaccurate.
In this case, the EC considers the actions Apple has made to be insufficient. That's a less biased way to state the same information than "Apple has done nothing" is.
If it wasn't, there would be a filed issue with the EC.
Citation needed. Why do assume that the EC is functioning at perfect efficiency? There is no situation in which there isn't a filed issue?
You WANT Apple to be in the right...
Citation needed. I have issues with the way Apple's App Store works. Your mind reading leaves something to be desired.
Apple has also agreed to make changes at the behest of the commission, but it hasn't agreed to any specific actions or any time line. This is much to the commission's disapproval, but Apple doesn't seem particular concerned. In a statement to the BBC, Apple actually says that it's doing "more than others" to protect consumers from in-app purchases, pointing specifically to the upcoming iOS 8 feature Ask to Buy, which prevents children from making purchases and instead allows them to send that purchase to a parent for approval.
The summary is flamebait.
The answer is not assumed to be binary.
Citation needed. (Unless this was meant to be funny.)
They're charging for cloud storage, not for the software. It's free software which comes with iOS and Mac OS X.
Neuroscience is a whole field dedicated to learning how the brain works. Do you really think that there has never been a video made of whole-brain neuronal activity? Ever heard of fMRI? That's the most common way to track activity over time, which - guess what - makes a video. There are many other imaging modalities which can be used to measure activity over time.
It's the first time this method was used to make a whole-brain record of activity. And it's cute that it uses visible light instead of magnetism or radioactive decay, but that certainly doesn't make it the only video.
OSX is a fine windowing system, but it's a little rough around the hedges when it comes to usability for the portion of the world that simply cannot become Apple converts.
I disagree. It's rough around the ledges.
Wouldn't this cause a rain shadow? The midwest would stop being useful farm land if all the moisture coming from the gulf stopped at the north end of Texas...
Apple IDs can be set to require two-factor authentication. Microsoft and Google may implement their killswitches and authentication differently. We'll have to wait and see.
You don't want a killswitch because you think the cost of an unauthorized use outweighs the benefit of an authorized use. Other people have other opinions. Many businesses, for example, require such features on devices they supply to their employees. So... perhaps your estimation of the likelihood of getting mis-used could be a little off?
Computing devices lend themselves to such features. Pants, wallets and whiskey do not. I'm not sure where you're going with this part. Also, the politician mentioned in the article is a local district attorney discussing local thefts and prosecutions, not a federal politician. You seem to think this is a government mandate, but don't provide any support for this.
I was wondering about the trolling because of the strangely aggressive tone towards victims of theft, not your purchasing preferences. I no longer think you're trolling, just sharing your verbose ill-informed opinions. Have a nice day.