This doesn't mean that the $1.2 million that Soon received from the fossil-fuel industry had no impact on Soon's outlook.
It doesn't help that it is a ridiculously terrible paper. His argument boils down to: "Using a small, cherry-picked subset of the data that has known errors that we aren't going to correct for, we can see that incoming solar energy is correlated with temperature, and therefore CO2 doesn't cause climate change." This argument is equivalent to say that because sugar intake is correlated with weight, exercise has no impact on weight, in addition to the horrible treatment of the data.
Either Soon is utterly incompetent, or he's a cynical shill for the fossil fuel industry. I'm not sure which is worse.
There's no reason to believe that there is actually significantly more piracy of apps on Android. This is one story from a single developer using customer service complaints as an estimate. I have yet to see any real data that has investigated the relative piracy rates in detail.
I'm sure that there is some additional piracy on Android, because the ecosystem itself is far more attractive to hobbyists that would like to hack their devices. But there's no reason whatsoever to believe that this one developer's claim is representative, that a 95% piracy rate is anything close to the norm for Android. I'd be willing to bet that for most mobile developers, piracy is a non-issue, whether working on Android or iOS.
I believe most of the shift from long-term investment to short-term investment happened as a result of the drastic reduction in capital gains taxes between about 1980 and 2003 or so.
It's pretty easy to get around this issue with JavaScript, e.g. by using Angular. I think this is less a problem with the HTTP protocol and more a problem with website design.
LLVM is currently a much better-written compiler package than GCC (specifically in that it's easier to maintain/upgrade the compiler and it provides better error messages for developers). Much of this is because GCC is older, and LLVM doesn't support quite as many languages. So, yeah, LLVM is a threat to GCC. The developers of GCC can only really counter this threat by rewriting GCC from scratch.
Clearly you didn't read my post, but it's just factually incorrect that public school (or private school) is uniformly horrible and soul-crushing. There are good and bad things about schools. And there are good and bad things about homeschooling.
Personally I just wish we would properly invest in our public school system so that there was no question of students doing better in school than at home. Homeschooling can be a reasonable personal decision for some people in situations where their schools are poor (and I would consider failure to deal with neurodiversity a sign of an extremely poor school). But as a society we should strive for an educational system where it isn't necessary, as well-trained professionals will always be able to do a better job at teaching than amateurs, given a sufficiently-supportive environment.
It is not true that there is a substantial body of literature that shows that homeschool students do better. The studies that do show this are rife with bias and methodological errors (principally, they tend to design the studies so that most of the children come from higher-income families, who do better in public school too). When you look at more fair samples, the difference isn't so dramatic.
It is very difficult to say whether homeschooling is better or worse academically. The problem is that parents differ dramatically in their teaching ability and their beliefs (some parents' beliefs actively harm their children's educations, e.g. creationism). So it's really really hard to generalize from the studies on homeschool effectiveness to how effective your family will be at promoting academic achievement.
Usually the biggest academic problem areas for homeschool students are math and science, though this may be biased by the large representation of conservative religious groups who homeschool as a matter of faith. Academically, homeschooling may or may not be a benefit depending upon your knowledge and abilities, and upon the quality of your local school system.
It is also worth pointing out that the homeschooling does produce difficulties with socialization. Many homeschool proponents brush off this claim as if it is meaningless, but it really is not. Socialization is about developing a shared social language. It is built from common experiences. Homeschooling children pulls those children out of the path that most people grow up with, which, in turn, means that they are very likely to feel out of place among their peers when they leave homeschool to go to a public school, college, or workforce.
Overall, I'd say it's a decision that has its pros and cons. If you have the ability to homeschool, I would wait and see about the quality of your local school system. If the local school system is of sufficiently high quality, they probably won't do any worse academically if they go to public school, and your child will have an easier time with interacting with their peers later in life.
In large part, I think Harrison Ford really carried the first trilogy. After I'd learned that Ford improvised a number of his lines, I watched the trilogy again and noticed just how wooden and dead nearly all of the other characters in the movies were.
I do think that this trilogy stands a much better chance as long as Lucas isn't writing the dialog. He's okay, I think, as far as overall plot is concerned. But dialog and characters really aren't his strong suit.
As for Abrams, his main problem, it seems to me, is that he seems to focus a bit over-much on action sequences. But Star Wars works pretty well with that, so I'm not too concerned. I think it might work fairly well.
Why not? Right now Tesla has far more demand for their cars than they can fill. The reason why they're in the red is because they're building their manufacturing capacity so rapidly.
Who do you think Obamacare is paying off? Are you making allusion to the fact that Obama's campaign had a very broad funding strategy, so that Obama is "paying off" the general populace?
This is precisely why header compression is so useful.
Loading this page, for example, I see 93 separate requests, dozens of which are less than few kilobytes. And while there are a number of different domains, there are quite a few requests that share the same domain. I imagine that having only one connection per domain, instead of one connection per request, would reduce the number of connections by a factor of five or more (I'm not taking the time to look through and count nearly a hundred requests).
So yes, I do think that header compression is likely to be very useful. And combining header compression with allowing one connection for a batch of requests will give web developers quite a lot more flexibility in how they structure their websites.
Google Glass, at present, is not intended for consumers. It's intended for developers. They're basically trying to get the app ecosystem up and running before a consumer-friendly version of the product is released.
I fully expect that consumer versions of the product will typically cost less than $600 around launch time, for the simple reason that I don't think they can expect a significant quantity of sales unless they get the price that low.
This is not the issue. The problem is that climate change denialists don't question honestly. They lie. They fabricate data. They ignore other data. And, by and large, are bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry.
Science is settled in the sense that we know climate change is happening, and humans are causing it, not because of any sort of dogma, but because the evidence is so strong. If the deniers actually engaged in reasoned debate, scientists wouldn't be so incensed.
I'd also add that even if this research is valid, and even if stopping the action of this protein reduces skin aging in humans, there is a very good chance that the protein does other things that are quite important for health. It's conceivable, for instance, that you might have great skin, but a weakened immune system or have your digestion of certain important nutrients stunted. So even if there's no fraud, there's a lot of reason to remain skeptical.
I'm skeptical that there's actual evidence of severe adverse reactions (aside from the occasional allergic reaction). "I had a vaccine and then this bad thing happened to me," is not an indication that the vaccine caused the bad thing. It might have, but the severe reactions have been so incredibly rare that there's really no evidence of a causal link, as near as I can tell.
But what you are asking for here is a far, far higher barrier to obtaining a vaccination than is asked for for most any other medical procedure or remedy. The real information is, "This will protect your child, and the population as a whole, from serious diseases. It most likely won't cause any issues. Your child may have minor cold symptoms for a bit, which means the vaccine is working."
Note that under the "severe" reactions is usually the disclaimer that they can't actually be sure this reaction is caused by the vaccine. I'd be willing to bet that disclaimer should really be expanded to encompass every vaccine on the list, aside from the allergic reactions.
Well, right. A rehabilitation-based system needs a whole supportive infrastructure for it to work well. In this instance, you'd want there to be regularly-collected data on recidivism that is provided as feedback to rehabilitation centers so that they have the data they need to evaluate their release criteria. We'd also have to eliminate all for-profit prisons, and adequately fund the prisons that remain (I don't think they should be considered prisons at all, but whatever they are, they would need adequate funding).
Getting rid of non-crimes such as personal, non-reckless drug use would also be a huge benefit for everybody.
His profession is intellectual. Demonstrating extreme intellectual dishonesty is absolutely a valid disqualification for working in an intellectual field. Hurting people in the process by promulgating racist bullshit is a good reason as well.
Also, he wasn't a scholar that studied the fields relevant to his reality-free claims. So literally everybody who posts in this thread is just as qualified as he is to talk about race (and I'm sure many are more qualified).
Finally, arguments matter more than qualifications, and his arguments were absolute dreck. I know people who have yet to graduate from high school who are far more knowledgeable about race than this douche canoe.
And this is precisely why the police in the US are little more than armed, bullying thugs who suppress minorities and extort money (see: civil forfeiture).
That might be a meaningful reply if the book was, "Barbie: I Can Be a Manager". It isn't, so you're just pulling bullshit rationalizations out of thin air to justify some rather disgusting sexism.
Er, what? She doesn't employ anybody. She has a class project, gets a couple of boys to do her work for her, and takes the credit. There's nothing about this that is flattering for Barbie or women.
If you're going to say that people who want to be offended will be, you should at least not create a straw-man of peoples' actual complaints.
First, we've now sequenced the DNA of so many microorganisms that it would be very, very hard for a new domain of life that uses the same sort of DNA structures to exist. The only likely way for a new form of life to exist is for it to be of a kind that isn't picked up in our DNA tests. That's what is proposed in this article.
Given that, and given that all life (and viruses) found so far speak the same basic DNA language, it's really not unreasonable at all that the domains we've already discovered are the only ones.
There's an outside possibility of new discoveries shaking up the current tree of life, splitting one of our domains in two (as happened with bacteria/archaea). But that's not what is being discussed in this article.
I honestly have always been annoyed with this rather restrictive definition. It excludes viruses, but I can see no reason why we should consider viruses to be a completely different category than living organisms.
Not quite. They're suggesting that there's a good chance that there's an entirely different domain (or more) of life other than eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea. That's a pretty radical proposition, but not entirely out of bounds, because many of our more modern techniques for detecting life forms check for molecules that may not exist in a fourth (or fifth or sixth) domain of life.
If it turns out to be the case that there are only three domains of cellular life (leaving viruses out of the discussion for now), that doesn't indicate that we know all there is to know. It just means that cellular life can be categorized into three groups. These researchers could be entirely incorrect in their assumptions. For example, the genes they mention could have evolved within the viruses themselves, or could be remnants of a now-extinct branch of eukaryotes.
Slashdot Mirror
This doesn't mean that the $1.2 million that Soon received from the fossil-fuel industry had no impact on Soon's outlook.
It doesn't help that it is a ridiculously terrible paper. His argument boils down to: "Using a small, cherry-picked subset of the data that has known errors that we aren't going to correct for, we can see that incoming solar energy is correlated with temperature, and therefore CO2 doesn't cause climate change." This argument is equivalent to say that because sugar intake is correlated with weight, exercise has no impact on weight, in addition to the horrible treatment of the data.
Either Soon is utterly incompetent, or he's a cynical shill for the fossil fuel industry. I'm not sure which is worse.
There's no reason to believe that there is actually significantly more piracy of apps on Android. This is one story from a single developer using customer service complaints as an estimate. I have yet to see any real data that has investigated the relative piracy rates in detail.
I'm sure that there is some additional piracy on Android, because the ecosystem itself is far more attractive to hobbyists that would like to hack their devices. But there's no reason whatsoever to believe that this one developer's claim is representative, that a 95% piracy rate is anything close to the norm for Android. I'd be willing to bet that for most mobile developers, piracy is a non-issue, whether working on Android or iOS.
I believe most of the shift from long-term investment to short-term investment happened as a result of the drastic reduction in capital gains taxes between about 1980 and 2003 or so.
It's pretty easy to get around this issue with JavaScript, e.g. by using Angular. I think this is less a problem with the HTTP protocol and more a problem with website design.
LLVM is currently a much better-written compiler package than GCC (specifically in that it's easier to maintain/upgrade the compiler and it provides better error messages for developers). Much of this is because GCC is older, and LLVM doesn't support quite as many languages. So, yeah, LLVM is a threat to GCC. The developers of GCC can only really counter this threat by rewriting GCC from scratch.
Clearly you didn't read my post, but it's just factually incorrect that public school (or private school) is uniformly horrible and soul-crushing. There are good and bad things about schools. And there are good and bad things about homeschooling.
Personally I just wish we would properly invest in our public school system so that there was no question of students doing better in school than at home. Homeschooling can be a reasonable personal decision for some people in situations where their schools are poor (and I would consider failure to deal with neurodiversity a sign of an extremely poor school). But as a society we should strive for an educational system where it isn't necessary, as well-trained professionals will always be able to do a better job at teaching than amateurs, given a sufficiently-supportive environment.
It is not true that there is a substantial body of literature that shows that homeschool students do better. The studies that do show this are rife with bias and methodological errors (principally, they tend to design the studies so that most of the children come from higher-income families, who do better in public school too). When you look at more fair samples, the difference isn't so dramatic.
It is very difficult to say whether homeschooling is better or worse academically. The problem is that parents differ dramatically in their teaching ability and their beliefs (some parents' beliefs actively harm their children's educations, e.g. creationism). So it's really really hard to generalize from the studies on homeschool effectiveness to how effective your family will be at promoting academic achievement.
Usually the biggest academic problem areas for homeschool students are math and science, though this may be biased by the large representation of conservative religious groups who homeschool as a matter of faith. Academically, homeschooling may or may not be a benefit depending upon your knowledge and abilities, and upon the quality of your local school system.
It is also worth pointing out that the homeschooling does produce difficulties with socialization. Many homeschool proponents brush off this claim as if it is meaningless, but it really is not. Socialization is about developing a shared social language. It is built from common experiences. Homeschooling children pulls those children out of the path that most people grow up with, which, in turn, means that they are very likely to feel out of place among their peers when they leave homeschool to go to a public school, college, or workforce.
Overall, I'd say it's a decision that has its pros and cons. If you have the ability to homeschool, I would wait and see about the quality of your local school system. If the local school system is of sufficiently high quality, they probably won't do any worse academically if they go to public school, and your child will have an easier time with interacting with their peers later in life.
That would be nice, considering that Google has abandoned that policy entirely.
Facebook, on the other hand, seems to be stepping up the enforcement of their real name policy.
In large part, I think Harrison Ford really carried the first trilogy. After I'd learned that Ford improvised a number of his lines, I watched the trilogy again and noticed just how wooden and dead nearly all of the other characters in the movies were.
I do think that this trilogy stands a much better chance as long as Lucas isn't writing the dialog. He's okay, I think, as far as overall plot is concerned. But dialog and characters really aren't his strong suit.
As for Abrams, his main problem, it seems to me, is that he seems to focus a bit over-much on action sequences. But Star Wars works pretty well with that, so I'm not too concerned. I think it might work fairly well.
Why not? Right now Tesla has far more demand for their cars than they can fill. The reason why they're in the red is because they're building their manufacturing capacity so rapidly.
Who do you think Obamacare is paying off? Are you making allusion to the fact that Obama's campaign had a very broad funding strategy, so that Obama is "paying off" the general populace?
This is precisely why header compression is so useful.
Loading this page, for example, I see 93 separate requests, dozens of which are less than few kilobytes. And while there are a number of different domains, there are quite a few requests that share the same domain. I imagine that having only one connection per domain, instead of one connection per request, would reduce the number of connections by a factor of five or more (I'm not taking the time to look through and count nearly a hundred requests).
So yes, I do think that header compression is likely to be very useful. And combining header compression with allowing one connection for a batch of requests will give web developers quite a lot more flexibility in how they structure their websites.
Google Glass, at present, is not intended for consumers. It's intended for developers. They're basically trying to get the app ecosystem up and running before a consumer-friendly version of the product is released.
I fully expect that consumer versions of the product will typically cost less than $600 around launch time, for the simple reason that I don't think they can expect a significant quantity of sales unless they get the price that low.
This is not the issue. The problem is that climate change denialists don't question honestly. They lie. They fabricate data. They ignore other data. And, by and large, are bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry.
Science is settled in the sense that we know climate change is happening, and humans are causing it, not because of any sort of dogma, but because the evidence is so strong. If the deniers actually engaged in reasoned debate, scientists wouldn't be so incensed.
It is pretty great PR. But unfortunately it seems to be a pretty crappy movie, which blunts my enthusiasm for watching it.
I'd also add that even if this research is valid, and even if stopping the action of this protein reduces skin aging in humans, there is a very good chance that the protein does other things that are quite important for health. It's conceivable, for instance, that you might have great skin, but a weakened immune system or have your digestion of certain important nutrients stunted. So even if there's no fraud, there's a lot of reason to remain skeptical.
I'm skeptical that there's actual evidence of severe adverse reactions (aside from the occasional allergic reaction). "I had a vaccine and then this bad thing happened to me," is not an indication that the vaccine caused the bad thing. It might have, but the severe reactions have been so incredibly rare that there's really no evidence of a causal link, as near as I can tell.
But what you are asking for here is a far, far higher barrier to obtaining a vaccination than is asked for for most any other medical procedure or remedy. The real information is, "This will protect your child, and the population as a whole, from serious diseases. It most likely won't cause any issues. Your child may have minor cold symptoms for a bit, which means the vaccine is working."
The CDC's page is informative here: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/va...
Note that under the "severe" reactions is usually the disclaimer that they can't actually be sure this reaction is caused by the vaccine. I'd be willing to bet that disclaimer should really be expanded to encompass every vaccine on the list, aside from the allergic reactions.
Well, right. A rehabilitation-based system needs a whole supportive infrastructure for it to work well. In this instance, you'd want there to be regularly-collected data on recidivism that is provided as feedback to rehabilitation centers so that they have the data they need to evaluate their release criteria. We'd also have to eliminate all for-profit prisons, and adequately fund the prisons that remain (I don't think they should be considered prisons at all, but whatever they are, they would need adequate funding).
Getting rid of non-crimes such as personal, non-reckless drug use would also be a huge benefit for everybody.
His profession is intellectual. Demonstrating extreme intellectual dishonesty is absolutely a valid disqualification for working in an intellectual field. Hurting people in the process by promulgating racist bullshit is a good reason as well.
Also, he wasn't a scholar that studied the fields relevant to his reality-free claims. So literally everybody who posts in this thread is just as qualified as he is to talk about race (and I'm sure many are more qualified).
Finally, arguments matter more than qualifications, and his arguments were absolute dreck. I know people who have yet to graduate from high school who are far more knowledgeable about race than this douche canoe.
And this is precisely why the police in the US are little more than armed, bullying thugs who suppress minorities and extort money (see: civil forfeiture).
That might be a meaningful reply if the book was, "Barbie: I Can Be a Manager". It isn't, so you're just pulling bullshit rationalizations out of thin air to justify some rather disgusting sexism.
Er, what? She doesn't employ anybody. She has a class project, gets a couple of boys to do her work for her, and takes the credit. There's nothing about this that is flattering for Barbie or women.
If you're going to say that people who want to be offended will be, you should at least not create a straw-man of peoples' actual complaints.
A couple of points here.
First, we've now sequenced the DNA of so many microorganisms that it would be very, very hard for a new domain of life that uses the same sort of DNA structures to exist. The only likely way for a new form of life to exist is for it to be of a kind that isn't picked up in our DNA tests. That's what is proposed in this article.
Given that, and given that all life (and viruses) found so far speak the same basic DNA language, it's really not unreasonable at all that the domains we've already discovered are the only ones.
There's an outside possibility of new discoveries shaking up the current tree of life, splitting one of our domains in two (as happened with bacteria/archaea). But that's not what is being discussed in this article.
I honestly have always been annoyed with this rather restrictive definition. It excludes viruses, but I can see no reason why we should consider viruses to be a completely different category than living organisms.
Not quite. They're suggesting that there's a good chance that there's an entirely different domain (or more) of life other than eukaryotes, bacteria, and archaea. That's a pretty radical proposition, but not entirely out of bounds, because many of our more modern techniques for detecting life forms check for molecules that may not exist in a fourth (or fifth or sixth) domain of life.
If it turns out to be the case that there are only three domains of cellular life (leaving viruses out of the discussion for now), that doesn't indicate that we know all there is to know. It just means that cellular life can be categorized into three groups. These researchers could be entirely incorrect in their assumptions. For example, the genes they mention could have evolved within the viruses themselves, or could be remnants of a now-extinct branch of eukaryotes.