Label noise is most definitely a valid concern. Usually such problems are dealt with via crowdsourced curation of the dataset. Of course, you can imagine what would happen if Google let users decide whether or not something should be considered explicit. Cats and dogs living together. Mass hysteria.
Perhaps in a small population with many data points for each individual that's possible, but if you consider cookies a valid measure of uniqueness, you might as well use user agent + installed fonts as your unique token. In a larger data set the analysis of motions which are this complex would be either computationally prohibitive, or far too esoteric and subtle to have statistical confidence.
There's a happy medium; it can augment the tracking inside the window by letting tracking continue if the cursor drifts outside. When the browser window isn't maximized, a lot of people can be assumed to keep their mouse out of it. I think that's of more real use than contemplating if the user has gotten bored and is switching to another program.
So use another search engine. Bing and Yahoo! still exist. Heck, AltaVista still exists. So do Metacrawler and Dogpile. Go back in time, my friend, until you are happy.
You've misunderstood a little. You can still make explicit search queries; they've just been segregated. The person who benefits the most is the one who doesn't want to get bitten by having Safe Search turned off while in front of others. The most important criticism, in my opinion, is that it hides scandals: e.g. searching for "paris hilton" will no longer return results for "paris hilton sex tape"; you'd have to dig for that separately.
More plausibly, this can be used to determine how quickly someone reaches for the top-right corner to kill an advertisement, or if they start to and then suddenly stop because they got distracted by something in the pop-up.
...based on the content of which, you can then predict attitudes, political orientation, sexual orientation, and how many pets someone owns. The r squared of the correlation is nearly 0.05 making it extremely interesting to analytic companies. There is a database somewhere of literally years of mouse movement records that demonstrate changes in religion, politics, and mean income. We're talking about a new marketing paradigm for the 21st century advertiser.
The fault lies with the university's PR department this time. It appears they took an off-handed comment about pixel-based codecs being completely surpassed in half a decade, and sound-bit it as "the pixel will be dead in five years." Extremetech didn't exactly help things along, either.
I'm somewhat confident that if someone had invented a continuous method of storing and displaying images, it would be picked up by somewhat more prominent sources.
Unicorns aren't supernatural? Most significant portrayals include magical effects or other legendary properties. A unicorn is much more than a hoofed equid with a single horn.
The political relationship between South Korea and the United States is such that South Korea could never possibly need a nuclear deterrent once the DPRK was reformed or abolished. So... no, making millions of lives better is definitely not less important in this situation.
No one wants to attack or invade North Korea. Taking out the government means taking care of the people, and somewhere in there that would mean a lot of unskilled immigrants that South Korea can't support economically. It would make no sense. The rest of the world is much more interested in pressuring the DPRK into reform, so it can take care of its citizens on its own. No one knows how to actually do that, but they certainly have no interest in anything else, other than preventing the country from harming its neighbours.
That definition is misleading. In general medical usage, 'virus' actually describes a collection of several different aspects: the software, hardware, and the behaviour of the software when run. The term 'virus particle' or 'virion' is closer to what you intend, although due to synecdoche the summary is not mistaken when it uses the term "reprogrammed virus" to refer to engineered viral particles.
Go back to Economics 101. Drug company A who depends on cancer management drug B can be put out of business by drug company C who makes cancer cure D. For every company A, there exists a large number of companies who want to make cure D. To say nothing of the PR that it would cause! Just because one company doesn't want to lose their cash flow doesn't mean others will let them. This happens all the time in incremental improvements in e.g. blood pressure medication, and finding a cure is really just taking the limit of that process of iterative refinement.
No, the key component of what makes AIDS harmful is a product of its habit of reproducing once it is inside of the cell. The two aspects cannot be separated. If the girl suffers from any long-term side-effects, it will be a reduced susceptibility to HIV, because her immune system is getting a chance to see the HIV coating layer without any payload. (Very much like a weak vaccine.)
That's more than a little misleading. The drugs used in chemotherapy are chosen because they preferentially kill fast-growing tissue first, such as hair, the intestinal endothelium (lining), and tumour cells. It's not as simple as taking some arbitrary, nondescript "poison" under the assumption that the cancerous tissue is poorly equipped to handle all toxins; specific mechanisms are chosen to limit the impact that the drugs have on the rest of the body.
The GP also made a bad comparison since, as the AC also said, inactivated viruses in this form have no replicative ability whatsoever. They're just gene syringes. These same misconceptions arose the last time we discussed retroviral leukaemia treatments.
Perhaps it was possible in some non-literal sense? An anonymous poster pointed out that classic ASP could run JScript on the server-side. You could call that figuratively running JavaScript on a server due to the language differences. Or you could run a web browser on your server, but I guess that would actually be a very literal sense too, in which case the GP is wrong.
You should read some of the other replies. That's already been covered. The gist of it is "electronic devices are assumed to be more distracting than books, and they're too lazy to make exceptions for e-readers."
Slashdot Mirror
Label noise is most definitely a valid concern. Usually such problems are dealt with via crowdsourced curation of the dataset. Of course, you can imagine what would happen if Google let users decide whether or not something should be considered explicit. Cats and dogs living together. Mass hysteria.
Perhaps in a small population with many data points for each individual that's possible, but if you consider cookies a valid measure of uniqueness, you might as well use user agent + installed fonts as your unique token. In a larger data set the analysis of motions which are this complex would be either computationally prohibitive, or far too esoteric and subtle to have statistical confidence.
There's a happy medium; it can augment the tracking inside the window by letting tracking continue if the cursor drifts outside. When the browser window isn't maximized, a lot of people can be assumed to keep their mouse out of it. I think that's of more real use than contemplating if the user has gotten bored and is switching to another program.
So use another search engine. Bing and Yahoo! still exist. Heck, AltaVista still exists. So do Metacrawler and Dogpile. Go back in time, my friend, until you are happy.
SafeSearch prevents you from searching for explicit material entirely. It's not the same.
You've misunderstood a little. You can still make explicit search queries; they've just been segregated. The person who benefits the most is the one who doesn't want to get bitten by having Safe Search turned off while in front of others. The most important criticism, in my opinion, is that it hides scandals: e.g. searching for "paris hilton" will no longer return results for "paris hilton sex tape"; you'd have to dig for that separately.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=anything+but+porn
Meh, close enough.
More plausibly, this can be used to determine how quickly someone reaches for the top-right corner to kill an advertisement, or if they start to and then suddenly stop because they got distracted by something in the pop-up.
...based on the content of which, you can then predict attitudes, political orientation, sexual orientation, and how many pets someone owns. The r squared of the correlation is nearly 0.05 making it extremely interesting to analytic companies. There is a database somewhere of literally years of mouse movement records that demonstrate changes in religion, politics, and mean income. We're talking about a new marketing paradigm for the 21st century advertiser.
The fault lies with the university's PR department this time. It appears they took an off-handed comment about pixel-based codecs being completely surpassed in half a decade, and sound-bit it as "the pixel will be dead in five years." Extremetech didn't exactly help things along, either.
I'm somewhat confident that if someone had invented a continuous method of storing and displaying images, it would be picked up by somewhat more prominent sources.
I'm voting for pun. Alternatively, one of these in portrait mode... that's a lot of lines of code.
It is perhaps a testament to the viciousness of the DPRK's own propaganda that people ever consider the situation in any other light.
Unicorns aren't supernatural? Most significant portrayals include magical effects or other legendary properties. A unicorn is much more than a hoofed equid with a single horn.
The political relationship between South Korea and the United States is such that South Korea could never possibly need a nuclear deterrent once the DPRK was reformed or abolished. So... no, making millions of lives better is definitely not less important in this situation.
No one wants to attack or invade North Korea. Taking out the government means taking care of the people, and somewhere in there that would mean a lot of unskilled immigrants that South Korea can't support economically. It would make no sense. The rest of the world is much more interested in pressuring the DPRK into reform, so it can take care of its citizens on its own. No one knows how to actually do that, but they certainly have no interest in anything else, other than preventing the country from harming its neighbours.
And let's not forget that sweet, sweet, >100% voter turnout. Evidence suggest the Communist Party actually received more legitimate votes last year.
You may want to tell some of the people who voted you up about that, just to be on the safe side.
That definition is misleading. In general medical usage, 'virus' actually describes a collection of several different aspects: the software, hardware, and the behaviour of the software when run. The term 'virus particle' or 'virion' is closer to what you intend, although due to synecdoche the summary is not mistaken when it uses the term "reprogrammed virus" to refer to engineered viral particles.
Go back to Economics 101. Drug company A who depends on cancer management drug B can be put out of business by drug company C who makes cancer cure D. For every company A, there exists a large number of companies who want to make cure D. To say nothing of the PR that it would cause! Just because one company doesn't want to lose their cash flow doesn't mean others will let them. This happens all the time in incremental improvements in e.g. blood pressure medication, and finding a cure is really just taking the limit of that process of iterative refinement.
You know that classifies as FUD, right?
...that is, other than having a significant portion of her immune system amputated.
No, the key component of what makes AIDS harmful is a product of its habit of reproducing once it is inside of the cell. The two aspects cannot be separated. If the girl suffers from any long-term side-effects, it will be a reduced susceptibility to HIV, because her immune system is getting a chance to see the HIV coating layer without any payload. (Very much like a weak vaccine.)
That's more than a little misleading. The drugs used in chemotherapy are chosen because they preferentially kill fast-growing tissue first, such as hair, the intestinal endothelium (lining), and tumour cells. It's not as simple as taking some arbitrary, nondescript "poison" under the assumption that the cancerous tissue is poorly equipped to handle all toxins; specific mechanisms are chosen to limit the impact that the drugs have on the rest of the body.
The GP also made a bad comparison since, as the AC also said, inactivated viruses in this form have no replicative ability whatsoever. They're just gene syringes. These same misconceptions arose the last time we discussed retroviral leukaemia treatments.
Perhaps it was possible in some non-literal sense? An anonymous poster pointed out that classic ASP could run JScript on the server-side. You could call that figuratively running JavaScript on a server due to the language differences. Or you could run a web browser on your server, but I guess that would actually be a very literal sense too, in which case the GP is wrong.
Pfft. So archaic. You should see the new JS frameworks. They're a blast.
You should read some of the other replies. That's already been covered. The gist of it is "electronic devices are assumed to be more distracting than books, and they're too lazy to make exceptions for e-readers."