Pretty sure it's uneconomical in the long run if the business model is blatantly to undercut Red Hat, Inc. and then discontinue the product to force people to migrate to other, more expensive Oracle offerings.
Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.
When you put it that way, it makes me disappointed that most radiation shielding consists of really heavy metals (and/or plastic; remember kids, shield your beta emitters properly!) and not giant zeppelins. That would be so much cooler. Yes. Zeppelins.
What you're describing is a paired difference test. The paired t-test that I suggested is an example of such. It's a little fancier than just comparing averages; in fact, all t-tests also compare variance.
I can't believe I have to spell it out for you, but paired tests are not possible when studying the effects of a gene in a population. You can't just mutate targeted genes in people and expect results; we don't have the technology, and even if we did, it would be profoundly unethical to use in a double-blind trial. All that leaves you with are the statistical properties of the distribution, which is invariably mound-shaped and a little lumpy. There's not much to look at that isn't described by the variance and the mean.
Even if you did have a way to force people to use a super-powerful method for comparing the exact shapes of two distributions, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which does indeed return an exact value, the most important result would still be the confidence metric that results from the test.
And as I understand it, it's generally best practice when discovering the underlying mechanism for something to cite all of the studies that either support or conflict with your conclusions, and then explain why the conflicting studies are wrong. Otherwise people will just shake their heads at you and say there's a ton of evidence that you're wrong.
There are indeed such risks. Particularly in the US, doctors sometimes suggest or encourage unnecessary c-sections because they think they're safer (and less likely to result in lawsuits), opening the door to a number of complications; people (either doctors or mothers) choose to induce labour chemically to fit a schedule, leading to fatal exhaustion from prolonged labour; and there's some evidence that lying down while giving birth is less healthy than standing up, simply because of how the human body is built, which comes with yet another raft of potential issues. Here is a discussion of the first one. Not sure I agree with this study, but hey, these things happen. It's fairly easy to research.
I might propose targeting the software review board that didn't catch the flaws, or perhaps the management who decided such a review board was unnecessary. Security-critical hardware should have at least some QC and/or validation at the firmware code level, y'know?
And all I really wanted to point out is that no one ever reads We The Living, and that the rest of her writing career was very much focused on Objectivist themes (and, in case there was any doubt, that her personal life goes very much the same way, as demonstrated by her intolerance and dismissal of any friend who disagreed with her.)
One of Nathaniel Branden's final conclusions is that Rand wanted a world of absolute conformity of perspective. If anyone does pick up an understanding of theory of mind from one of her more popular works, I would expect it wouldn't go any further than "whatever they think is either the same as me or wrong." I think based on your last paragraph you have the insight to avoid this particular pitfall of her thinking.
At any rate, based on the methods used in this study, Atlas Shrugged certainly wouldn't make people uniformly more sympathetic to the plights of others—presumably only those being forced to feel for others against their will—and so wouldn't show up as the type of books they were aiming to test anyway.
The Steam client can patch itself in about twenty seconds under Windows. That's not really much of a barrier. The rest I think we've already talked about—just fucking test your games before shipping them, like console titles (used to) do. And if it still doesn't work, the user always has the option of actually installing Steam or Steam OS to run the game properly.
Well no, they shouldn't; as I've said, it's just supposed to be a teaser and a motivation to get people to install Steam OS properly, offering a kind of try-before-you-install environment first. I think that's reasonable for a single-player game.
I find it a little odd that you're so hung up on the idea of updates, though, given that console games (even fairly complicated ones) did without them for decades, and still largely do. A month or two of extra testing at the end of a game's development cycle, motivated by the potential embarrassment for a game studio of putting out a buggy disc, would probably be enough to drastically reduce the problems for many titles.
Certainly people have adverse reactions to vaccines, as with any medication; I had a penicillin allergy when I was very young that meant I couldn't get certain standard shots, including (I think) MMR. Fortunately medicine is improving so the likelihood of preventable medication-caused harm is reducing. Here is an article on what we know and what alarmists assume.
Presumably you could use a flash drive or something to bridge that particular shortcoming, or even a cloud sync—but, again, older consoles did that for a long time. Any imperfections are merely additional impetus to get people to install the Steam desktop client and/or Steam OS.
Forgive me, but I can't see any practical implications of your reasoning that aren't merely a question of whether or not the controls used were adequate, which I already brought up. Specific outcomes can't be predicted until a complete underlying model has been built, which is impossible until well after an initial statistical survey has been conducted even in relatively simple single-gene cases. With something as complicated as the whole human brain, which is by far the most complex scientific endeavour we have ever undertaken as a civilization, carefully-controlled studies are a valuable tool in helping us get pointed in the right direction.
The unfortunate economic consequences are somewhat mitigated through consortia of smaller institutions and the existence of merit-based grants. Keep in mind grants have been around forever, and have always functioned to make science funding more egalitarian; unequal distribution of wealth is not exactly a new problem.
Key word: behaves. Once you booted it up from the live CD and everything was in a RAM disk, you'd be able to swap to another game disc if you wanted, and all of Steam OS's features would stay resident.
Welcome to the wild world of pharmacogenomics. Brain drugs depend on such subtle and variable parts of our genomes that they have a very high chance of backfiring. Antidepressants are particularly awful at this, which is extra-horrific because they take months of side-effects before they actually do the job. Thus there's a lot of money in personalized medicine—a quick test can potentially prevent a toxic reaction or putting a depressive person through years of agony as the therapist tries increasingly expensive antidepressants.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the auto-updating copyright date, I think most of that place is vintage 2003. (Which makes this story even more after the fact.)
If it's about any specific language, it'd be Java (though lots of languages are mentioned); note the title.
Well, maybe you should try this much more venerable, thorough, and entertaining encyclopedia of unmaintainable code tips. Should make you as immovable as the CEO's firstborn.
See previous story: "Bizarrely, when he asked Facebook why they don't also threaten Ad-Block, the Facebook rep claimed to have never heard of it."
One of its features is blocking ads (and paid placements, i.e. ads.) That's what Facebook is upset about. It's that simple.
Pretty sure it's uneconomical in the long run if the business model is blatantly to undercut Red Hat, Inc. and then discontinue the product to force people to migrate to other, more expensive Oracle offerings.
Are you sure? The harder they fail at fixing the current mess, the harder it'll be for them to get hired afterwards. Nothing disillusions the supporters of a broken system like its colossal, unmitigated, blatant failure.
...daggit nabbit. Braking radiation, not breaking radiation.
When you put it that way, it makes me disappointed that most radiation shielding consists of really heavy metals (and/or plastic; remember kids, shield your beta emitters properly!) and not giant zeppelins. That would be so much cooler. Yes. Zeppelins.
What you're describing is a paired difference test. The paired t-test that I suggested is an example of such. It's a little fancier than just comparing averages; in fact, all t-tests also compare variance.
I can't believe I have to spell it out for you, but paired tests are not possible when studying the effects of a gene in a population. You can't just mutate targeted genes in people and expect results; we don't have the technology, and even if we did, it would be profoundly unethical to use in a double-blind trial. All that leaves you with are the statistical properties of the distribution, which is invariably mound-shaped and a little lumpy. There's not much to look at that isn't described by the variance and the mean.
Even if you did have a way to force people to use a super-powerful method for comparing the exact shapes of two distributions, such as the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, which does indeed return an exact value, the most important result would still be the confidence metric that results from the test.
And as I understand it, it's generally best practice when discovering the underlying mechanism for something to cite all of the studies that either support or conflict with your conclusions, and then explain why the conflicting studies are wrong. Otherwise people will just shake their heads at you and say there's a ton of evidence that you're wrong.
I don't really see games needing security patches quite as much, at least not single-player titles.
There are indeed such risks. Particularly in the US, doctors sometimes suggest or encourage unnecessary c-sections because they think they're safer (and less likely to result in lawsuits), opening the door to a number of complications; people (either doctors or mothers) choose to induce labour chemically to fit a schedule, leading to fatal exhaustion from prolonged labour; and there's some evidence that lying down while giving birth is less healthy than standing up, simply because of how the human body is built, which comes with yet another raft of potential issues. Here is a discussion of the first one. Not sure I agree with this study, but hey, these things happen. It's fairly easy to research.
Sounds a wee bit Freud-y, but not entirely implausible. Personally I think the jellybeans are the right strategy.
I might propose targeting the software review board that didn't catch the flaws, or perhaps the management who decided such a review board was unnecessary. Security-critical hardware should have at least some QC and/or validation at the firmware code level, y'know?
And all I really wanted to point out is that no one ever reads We The Living, and that the rest of her writing career was very much focused on Objectivist themes (and, in case there was any doubt, that her personal life goes very much the same way, as demonstrated by her intolerance and dismissal of any friend who disagreed with her.)
One of Nathaniel Branden's final conclusions is that Rand wanted a world of absolute conformity of perspective. If anyone does pick up an understanding of theory of mind from one of her more popular works, I would expect it wouldn't go any further than "whatever they think is either the same as me or wrong." I think based on your last paragraph you have the insight to avoid this particular pitfall of her thinking.
At any rate, based on the methods used in this study, Atlas Shrugged certainly wouldn't make people uniformly more sympathetic to the plights of others—presumably only those being forced to feel for others against their will—and so wouldn't show up as the type of books they were aiming to test anyway.
Compare them how? Sorry, but I think you just made an argument for a paired Student's t-test. That doesn't get away from your p-value phobia at all.
The Steam client can patch itself in about twenty seconds under Windows. That's not really much of a barrier. The rest I think we've already talked about—just fucking test your games before shipping them, like console titles (used to) do. And if it still doesn't work, the user always has the option of actually installing Steam or Steam OS to run the game properly.
Well no, they shouldn't; as I've said, it's just supposed to be a teaser and a motivation to get people to install Steam OS properly, offering a kind of try-before-you-install environment first. I think that's reasonable for a single-player game.
I find it a little odd that you're so hung up on the idea of updates, though, given that console games (even fairly complicated ones) did without them for decades, and still largely do. A month or two of extra testing at the end of a game's development cycle, motivated by the potential embarrassment for a game studio of putting out a buggy disc, would probably be enough to drastically reduce the problems for many titles.
Certainly people have adverse reactions to vaccines, as with any medication; I had a penicillin allergy when I was very young that meant I couldn't get certain standard shots, including (I think) MMR. Fortunately medicine is improving so the likelihood of preventable medication-caused harm is reducing. Here is an article on what we know and what alarmists assume.
Presumably you could use a flash drive or something to bridge that particular shortcoming, or even a cloud sync—but, again, older consoles did that for a long time. Any imperfections are merely additional impetus to get people to install the Steam desktop client and/or Steam OS.
Forgive me, but I can't see any practical implications of your reasoning that aren't merely a question of whether or not the controls used were adequate, which I already brought up. Specific outcomes can't be predicted until a complete underlying model has been built, which is impossible until well after an initial statistical survey has been conducted even in relatively simple single-gene cases. With something as complicated as the whole human brain, which is by far the most complex scientific endeavour we have ever undertaken as a civilization, carefully-controlled studies are a valuable tool in helping us get pointed in the right direction.
The unfortunate economic consequences are somewhat mitigated through consortia of smaller institutions and the existence of merit-based grants. Keep in mind grants have been around forever, and have always functioned to make science funding more egalitarian; unequal distribution of wealth is not exactly a new problem.
Key word: behaves. Once you booted it up from the live CD and everything was in a RAM disk, you'd be able to swap to another game disc if you wanted, and all of Steam OS's features would stay resident.
If you're going to play apologist, can I assume you've read the analyses of Barbara and Nathaniel Branden?
ADRA2b is probably much more subtle in its effect than that, although we don't have hard numbers for everyday discouragements.
Welcome to the wild world of pharmacogenomics. Brain drugs depend on such subtle and variable parts of our genomes that they have a very high chance of backfiring. Antidepressants are particularly awful at this, which is extra-horrific because they take months of side-effects before they actually do the job. Thus there's a lot of money in personalized medicine—a quick test can potentially prevent a toxic reaction or putting a depressive person through years of agony as the therapist tries increasingly expensive antidepressants.