When you see "Russian", "USB key", "malware" and "SCADA" in a sentence you should automatically think Stuxnet, which TFA talks about at length. Stuxnet, happily, only attacks centrifuges, and is generally very sophisticated about staying out of the way. The chances of any complications happening spontaneously are somewhere between "Hollywood movie plot" and "political promise."
Computer-administered Turing tests are win-win—the arms race doesn't end until someone develops strong AI, at which point the followers are no longer fake.
For bone surgeries the objective is a little easier; the operation can be performed with real-time tracking and registration under CT fluoroscopy (i.e. a continuous volumetric X-ray). My Google-fu is insufficient to find any relevant citations; the source was a lecturer in a medical imaging course.
There are eight known cases of under or non-reporting as evidenced by PACER and LexisNexis, i.e. cases that led to legal complaints. The number could be a little bit larger, although probably not by much.
I find it interesting that the Da Vinci name is still on the market; it carries a lot of negative connotations from early tests where it was used in fully-automated knee and hip surgery (although I think the current robot is different from the infamous one.) It tended to cause a great deal more damage than it fixed, as while it was perfectly good at fixing bone, there was no consideration whatsoever for soft tissue and, IIRC, it just cut its way in. It sounds like something out of Terminator when you hear it described in detail.
The solution, long adopted by CS departments, is to hire adjuncts with a love of teaching and applicable training. My alma mater employed half a dozen or more in the CS department, and my graduate school has at least twice that (largely since it's a bigger school.) The real question is how to get other departments (or the whole faculty/college) to take teaching seriously and create a job market.
The competition continues to find the greatest ratio in ages between things and things discovering them. So far the record is held by the last child born outside on a sunny day.
My second semester of Calculus wasn't very different (although we had a full-year single course rather than two separate pieces.) The course had two sections; one taught by a hotshot teaching-award-winning superstar, the other run by an acolyte who quit after three or four months on the job. The second semester was thus an agonizing minefield of ever-rotating retirees, at least one of whom took outright offence to the thought of going through some of the examples. My (also full-year) general chemistry course was taught in sections, and most of the lecturers actually cared about teaching, but the guy in charge of crystals looked like he'd never seen an undergrad before.
So... yeah. I've had a taste of your pain. But I've discovered since getting to grad school that most experiences in university are drastically worse, especially at larger institutions with more prestige where they don't bother with hiring teachers and adjuncts. That being said, I think country has something to do with it; every story I've heard of course instructors in the US has left me cringing at least a little, and I think it's because of a decline in the quality of high school teaching—even if they go through training, younger professors simply aren't being exposed to good role models about how to run a classroom.
Pre-meds at my alma mater were required to take a second-year stats course, and were also exposed to Bayesian thinking in a special pre-med focused math course (which was mostly calculus but had some extras.) Mind you, this is in Canada.
First-year general chemistry wipes out a lot of students, largely because it's when you discover your high school learning strategies are no longer valid. I squeaked by with a cool C- when I took it, but it was sufficiently scary to make me take all of my other classes seriously after that. Clearly, if the life sciences curriculum has this much synergy in it, it hasn't been molested enough by well-meaning politicos and deluded parents.
As I understand it, the physics which are potentially of use to a pre-med don't go much beyond "figure out which equation produces the units you want, and rearrange it until it solves the problem for you." That doesn't involve getting an intuitive sense for quantities and thresholds, whereas these skills are forced on you right from the start of reactions in orgo.
And on that note, I would like to issue a general ban on "foretaste," as although it is a legitimate word with a mainstream dictionary definition, it is too silly.
It's well-understood these days that any text written in an encyclopedia style and littered with citations[1] is lifted directly from Wikipedia. [citation needed]
Dare to point out that being cynical isn't particularly daring; prepare to make good on all those promises of moving to Canada. (It's worth it! We don't have this, for example.)
Oh yes it is. Why else would this exist or this be so aggressive? If you're a programmer, then you are a witch and you are suspicious; end of story. No one with any lawmaking responsibility knows what you might be capable of, but it's probably at least as bad as this. Therefore, this happens. How does it feel to be branded a potential enemy of the state just because of an aptitude for creative problem-solving?
...ah, snap. Still, Ortiz and Holder wouldn't be any better off than Swartz doing the same via Harvard. The key point is that he had legitimate access.
No, no, no: Swartz was able to download JSTOR articles at all because, as a research fellow at MIT, he had the exact same kind of access agreement. All he did was scrape stuff from the JSTOR site using that access. The submitter was wrong to write that portion of the summary.
Ah, okay. Where I grew up there were a lot of low-pressure sodium lights, actually, until a thorough re-sidewalking in 2009 or so. For HPS I would imagine a red stop sign would indeed be still somewhat dark, given this other spectrum. (Also, off-topic, your sig is the best.)
Congratulations, you've discovered the problem with reading non-physics headlines from Arxiv: an unbelievably vast mishmash of nonsensical assumptions that prohibit publication in any peer-reviewed journal. Solution: avoid doing it at all costs.
It's also believed to be why programmers become nocturnal; the pure white light of a computer monitor screws up part of the Circadian rhythm. It's quite possible that all of New York will become even more insomniac after this change. The blueness of the light is surprisingly important; pure blue light is around four times more potent than white light in treating seasonal affective disorder, a form of depression caused by lack of daylight.
I'm not sure where you're getting the "expects redder colors" part from. The Purkinje effect simply describes the fact that we're more sensitive to blue light at lower intensities—we see it better. This is purely physical, and due to the assymmetry in the response curve of all of our photoreceptors. While most direct light sources activate the cone receptors, this bias is sufficient to make us think of our monochromatic rod cell night vision as slightly bluish, which is why nighttime scenes are depicted as being blue in art, even though you're literally only seeing something grey. Rod cells have such a wide response range in the blue portion of the spectrum (not shown on graph) that some people can see very violetish frequencies with them, causing eyestrain as we get indecisive about how to dilate the pupil.
Sodium lamps are extremely monochromatic; they only put out a very small range around 600 nm because of the chemical reaction that they operate on. Any white bulb either incandescent or LED, even ones with a bluish tint, will illuminate red signs much better than a traditional sodium-vapour lamp.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure those are called "based on a true story" movies.
When you see "Russian", "USB key", "malware" and "SCADA" in a sentence you should automatically think Stuxnet, which TFA talks about at length. Stuxnet, happily, only attacks centrifuges, and is generally very sophisticated about staying out of the way. The chances of any complications happening spontaneously are somewhere between "Hollywood movie plot" and "political promise."
Everyone still wins! Somewhere along the line, you get strong AI.
Computer-administered Turing tests are win-win—the arms race doesn't end until someone develops strong AI, at which point the followers are no longer fake.
Eight times. The shame shall be heaped upon you because it is eight times too big, not four. Flatlander chauvinist pig!
For bone surgeries the objective is a little easier; the operation can be performed with real-time tracking and registration under CT fluoroscopy (i.e. a continuous volumetric X-ray). My Google-fu is insufficient to find any relevant citations; the source was a lecturer in a medical imaging course.
Doesn't mean they didn't try, and aren't continuing to try. Automated surgery sounds very appealing in principle.
There are eight known cases of under or non-reporting as evidenced by PACER and LexisNexis, i.e. cases that led to legal complaints. The number could be a little bit larger, although probably not by much.
I find it interesting that the Da Vinci name is still on the market; it carries a lot of negative connotations from early tests where it was used in fully-automated knee and hip surgery (although I think the current robot is different from the infamous one.) It tended to cause a great deal more damage than it fixed, as while it was perfectly good at fixing bone, there was no consideration whatsoever for soft tissue and, IIRC, it just cut its way in. It sounds like something out of Terminator when you hear it described in detail.
No doubt because many people and other countries will take exception to that exceptional decision.
The solution, long adopted by CS departments, is to hire adjuncts with a love of teaching and applicable training. My alma mater employed half a dozen or more in the CS department, and my graduate school has at least twice that (largely since it's a bigger school.) The real question is how to get other departments (or the whole faculty/college) to take teaching seriously and create a job market.
The competition continues to find the greatest ratio in ages between things and things discovering them. So far the record is held by the last child born outside on a sunny day.
My second semester of Calculus wasn't very different (although we had a full-year single course rather than two separate pieces.) The course had two sections; one taught by a hotshot teaching-award-winning superstar, the other run by an acolyte who quit after three or four months on the job. The second semester was thus an agonizing minefield of ever-rotating retirees, at least one of whom took outright offence to the thought of going through some of the examples. My (also full-year) general chemistry course was taught in sections, and most of the lecturers actually cared about teaching, but the guy in charge of crystals looked like he'd never seen an undergrad before.
So... yeah. I've had a taste of your pain. But I've discovered since getting to grad school that most experiences in university are drastically worse, especially at larger institutions with more prestige where they don't bother with hiring teachers and adjuncts. That being said, I think country has something to do with it; every story I've heard of course instructors in the US has left me cringing at least a little, and I think it's because of a decline in the quality of high school teaching—even if they go through training, younger professors simply aren't being exposed to good role models about how to run a classroom.
Pre-meds at my alma mater were required to take a second-year stats course, and were also exposed to Bayesian thinking in a special pre-med focused math course (which was mostly calculus but had some extras.) Mind you, this is in Canada.
First-year general chemistry wipes out a lot of students, largely because it's when you discover your high school learning strategies are no longer valid. I squeaked by with a cool C- when I took it, but it was sufficiently scary to make me take all of my other classes seriously after that. Clearly, if the life sciences curriculum has this much synergy in it, it hasn't been molested enough by well-meaning politicos and deluded parents.
As I understand it, the physics which are potentially of use to a pre-med don't go much beyond "figure out which equation produces the units you want, and rearrange it until it solves the problem for you." That doesn't involve getting an intuitive sense for quantities and thresholds, whereas these skills are forced on you right from the start of reactions in orgo.
And on that note, I would like to issue a general ban on "foretaste," as although it is a legitimate word with a mainstream dictionary definition, it is too silly.
It's well-understood these days that any text written in an encyclopedia style and littered with citations[1] is lifted directly from Wikipedia. [citation needed]
Dare to point out that being cynical isn't particularly daring; prepare to make good on all those promises of moving to Canada. (It's worth it! We don't have this, for example.)
Oh yes it is. Why else would this exist or this be so aggressive? If you're a programmer, then you are a witch and you are suspicious; end of story. No one with any lawmaking responsibility knows what you might be capable of, but it's probably at least as bad as this. Therefore, this happens. How does it feel to be branded a potential enemy of the state just because of an aptitude for creative problem-solving?
...ah, snap. Still, Ortiz and Holder wouldn't be any better off than Swartz doing the same via Harvard. The key point is that he had legitimate access.
No, no, no: Swartz was able to download JSTOR articles at all because, as a research fellow at MIT, he had the exact same kind of access agreement. All he did was scrape stuff from the JSTOR site using that access. The submitter was wrong to write that portion of the summary.
...and at any rate, (most) NIH-funded research must become publicly accessible via PubMed Central within 12 months of publication, so this, too, is something of a non-story. Paywalls aren't quite as thorough (or elite) as we sometimes think.
Ah, okay. Where I grew up there were a lot of low-pressure sodium lights, actually, until a thorough re-sidewalking in 2009 or so. For HPS I would imagine a red stop sign would indeed be still somewhat dark, given this other spectrum. (Also, off-topic, your sig is the best.)
Congratulations, you've discovered the problem with reading non-physics headlines from Arxiv: an unbelievably vast mishmash of nonsensical assumptions that prohibit publication in any peer-reviewed journal. Solution: avoid doing it at all costs.
It's also believed to be why programmers become nocturnal; the pure white light of a computer monitor screws up part of the Circadian rhythm. It's quite possible that all of New York will become even more insomniac after this change. The blueness of the light is surprisingly important; pure blue light is around four times more potent than white light in treating seasonal affective disorder, a form of depression caused by lack of daylight.
I'm not sure where you're getting the "expects redder colors" part from. The Purkinje effect simply describes the fact that we're more sensitive to blue light at lower intensities—we see it better. This is purely physical, and due to the assymmetry in the response curve of all of our photoreceptors. While most direct light sources activate the cone receptors, this bias is sufficient to make us think of our monochromatic rod cell night vision as slightly bluish, which is why nighttime scenes are depicted as being blue in art, even though you're literally only seeing something grey. Rod cells have such a wide response range in the blue portion of the spectrum (not shown on graph) that some people can see very violetish frequencies with them, causing eyestrain as we get indecisive about how to dilate the pupil.
Sodium lamps are extremely monochromatic; they only put out a very small range around 600 nm because of the chemical reaction that they operate on. Any white bulb either incandescent or LED, even ones with a bluish tint, will illuminate red signs much better than a traditional sodium-vapour lamp.