Yes it is. Would you literally tell a candidate during a job interview that they are being hired to do "monkey work?" I doubt that. And if you did, any self-respecting person would walk out. Yes, the term is thrown around behind the back from time to time, but never in one's face unless the intent is to belittle one's work.
As I said, I say that about my own work a lot of the time. Sometimes I'm doing cool stuff, most of the time I'm doing repetitive stuff that is necessary nonetheless. It's boring as fuck, but I can't just wash my hands of it, because it needs to be done. If nobody where you work does anything trivial, you don't release anything, because there's no software that isn't 90% trivial.
Expatriates from every country have family, friends, and historical ties to the country they came from. Denying visitation for that reason is morally wrong.
There's a difference between moving to another country and renouncing citizenship. I honestly do think that when you renounce citizenship you should be told to submit in writing the reason you're renouncing citizenship. You should then be banned from entering the country again until the reason you stated no longer applies, at which point you should be allowed to regain it. This rule would allow you to renounce your citizenship for moral reasons (and hell, 'I believe I'm being taxed unfairly' counts, if it's that important to you), but it forces you to stick to your guns. You don't renounce citizenship for convenience, you renounce it when you believe your nation is immoral and needs to fundamentally change, and under those circumstances, you shouldn't want to come back until the situation changes.
That said, I'm with you, and I'm morally opposed to reactionary laws. Anything you do while in an emotionally charged state isn't likely to be well thought-out. This is true for individual decisions, and it's true for governments.
If you are a developer, and your boss thinks programming is "monkey work", I'd be looking for a different job, right now.
I know that's not the question you asked, but that's the answer I have.
Oh, c'mon. Have you never heard the term code monkey? I often have cool new features and challenging problems to work on, but you know what? The vast majority of the time I'm doing boring, easy stuff, that nevertheless needs to be done. I can't afford to just solve the complex problem and then say, "and the rest is trivial" and stop working.
It's not a derogatory term. It's just a way of saying that he wants to outsource the things he doesn't feel like should be a problem, even if he can't interact with the programmers as often as he would if they were in the cubicle 10 steps away.
Whether he's right and that's a good idea, I don't know. I feel like it won't work, but I'm biased. In fact, I question the wisdom of posting such a question in a site with a large concentration of US developers. We're all biased.
Well, when people tell me that nobody uses Google+, I'm quick to point out that's the single best feature about it.
I've always hated being inundated by inane posts, having difficulty finding the signal among all the noise. Plus, everybody who found out your name suddenly wanted to be your facebook friend. I didn't have a public searchable profile, but people I met would ask, "do you have a facebook account?" and I couldn't just flat out lie because somebody else who was in my list of friends would nearby and chime in, "yes, sure he does." Then I'd be put in the situation where I either add the person to my list of faux friends to add further noise the updates I see or tell them, "I don't want to add you" which is seen as offensive.
In Google+, I post my pictures and stuff, share it with the people who are interested in seeing them, and with nobody else. It's not active, in your face, "this is what where I had dinner last night" type posts, because I don't think anybody gives a shit where I had dinner last night. However, when I talk to someone in person that I went on a hiking trip someplace interesting, and they ask me if I have any pictures, I can tell them, "I'll send you a link to the album if you're interested." People also share things with me, but they're not posting as actively as people usually post on facebook, so I only get important updates. Signal to noise ratio is great...and if Google+ suddenly turned as popular as facebook, it would immediately turn to crap, so I hope it never does.
Their real name policy does bother me, but I tolerate it because the only people I ever share stuff with know my real name anyway.
Leia: "If you do this bad thing, you probably won't get what you want" Tarkin: ignores the advice, does the bad thing anyway (some time later) Tarkin doesn't have what he wants. He's also dead.
His point is that the people of Alderaan didn't exactly come out unscathed from the exchange. You can't just shrug off the Empire because you know eventually they'll lose. The longer they go before they eventually lose, the more casualties you accumulate in the meantime.
They report no statistical increase in cancer, but an absence of signal is not a signal of absence
What...the...fuck?
You took something you heard people legitimately saying about certain inferences and used in a way that is not legitimate.
Here's an example that is legitimate. A cold will sometimes, but not always, be accompanied by a cough. Therefore a researcher could be trying to examine the incidence of colds by examining the incidence of coughs. Because it's entirely possible to have colds without coughs, you may then legitimately claim that the absence of the signal, the cough, is not a signal of the absence of colds. It's sufficiently correlated that it is a useful metric, but it is not a sufficient metric to draw strong conclusions. The absence of coughs are, however, most certainly indicative of the absence of coughs
No statistical increase in cancer most certainly means no statistical increase in cancer (I'm a member of the tautology club!). It is possible that the the lack in statistical significance was an anomaly (and just how probable an anomaly that would be is quantifiable, and I'm sure is quantified in the paper in the form of a p-value), but it is certainly indicative of no increases in cancer. That is exactly what they were measuring.
"The ONLY point of technology is to make life easier for humans"--by that definition, Apple cranks out the best technology using the best engineering. Deal with it.
Except that Apple makes some damn hard to use, completely unintuitive stuff. The fact that everyone associates Apple with ease of use is a damn impressive triumph of marketing. If you say it enough times, people will believe you.
Their stuff is certainly polished and looks really nice, but looking nice is part of the marketing effort. They remove so many options in an attempt to make the user experience follow their predetermined path that as soon as you need to do anything a different way, you're completely stuck. How do I get to the end of a sentence in a document, the end key keeps taking me to the fucking end of the document. How do I get music on the iPhone? Oh, I need to let iTunes organize it, I can't just drag music files into it. What happens if my mac has multiple users and I plug in my iPhone while another user is logged on? iTunes gives the user a scary message that it will delete everything in the phone if you proceed. But I just want to put the music that is in the database under my wife's account...oh, I need to somehow get the music to show up in my account first because the iPhone can't fucking sync with multiple iTunes databases...
Besides: does this "ease of use" explain why I had to enter in fucking arcane escape sequences into the configs to make the Home, End, PgUp, and PgDn keys on my keyboard work?
Do you have arcane magic that actually make them work properly for all applications? If so, please share. I've googled for this from time to time, but no solution really works. It works for an application, but others remain broken.
They are actively punishing people for purchasing. The length of time of the punishment is not relevant. Pirating it is the only sane option. Paying for punishment is something only a few fetishists participate in.
Yeah, let me get this straight...there are people not buying movies, but by putting an annoying screen on the movies people like me buy, they plan to somehow cause the other guys to start buying them.
The business plan of the studios that signed up to participate is literally:
1. Annoy your paying customers.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
What actually happened is that they finally managed to make me stop buying movies. There were many close calls before, but this is finally the last straw.
You going to put up the money for me to break my lease, transport my furniture, new living situation, new job, etc?
Well, you get the job first. But relocation expenses for skilled workers are fairly common, even within the US.
That said, I don't buy that we don't have a say. These types of things are happening because literally half the country is in favor of it. The conservatives (not the libertarian conservatives, the other guys) believe we need to take these actions in order to protect the country for terrorism. If you see something the government is doing which actually has negligible support among the population, then you can say we don't have a say. There's really not much of that going around, so the blame still lies with us.
Actually, this makes the "keep a hard copy" argument better than I did. Because among the ways one can "screw up" is to become dead. In a twenty year timespan, this is a non-zero probability.
But if you suddenly die, the people are going to inherit the files in an up-to-date storage format, unless they wait 20 years from the day you died to take a look at it...
If you are thinking about preserving photos for future generations, then "just dump it in a closet" has to be a storage option. If you need more maintenance than just keeping the stash from burning down or being exposed to the elements, then you've created a dead-man delete switch.
Active maintenance of digital files is far easier than preventing hard copies from being exposed to the elements. We're not talking about your photos getting rained on, but just humidity in the air is enough to allow them to fade and yellow out over a period of 20+ years.
If I hand you a working RLL hard disk containing 20 year old GIFs, can you read them? How about a WORM disk? Now, suppose you're not a geek and the question becomes something more like "if I hand you this old electronic thing, what the heck is it?"
Yeah, but if you find yourself in that situation, you screwed up. I have all my files (well, all the ones that I wanted to save) since I started using computers in the 80s in a format I can easily access. That used to be 5.25" floppy discs (with proper backups), then I transferred it all to 3.5" during the transition period where I had both drives available, then I switched the data to cd-r's, and now I just keep them in all in a NAS (still with proper backups, not just the redundancy).
You're supposed to be moving that data to the newer formats as they come along, not just dump it in a closet somewhere.
Dude... when I was a young, broke man, we had better and far cheaper entertainment. We'd hang out somewhere with friends, sometimes playing actual sports (football = $10 or so.) I'd walk in the park with the missus. I'd go to the beach. I'd go hiking. I'd go to the library. There are a zillion ways to get entertainment that is far cheaper and far better for you than sitting stupefied in front of a TV while clutching a gaming controller.
That's all true, you get no argument from me. Although you don't always have friends available, or a place nearby where you can throw the football around without getting killed by passing cars (especially true if you're too young to go out by yourself), or the weather sucks, or you're sick and need to stay in bed...
I get your point, but seriously? An XBox is not a necessity.
I never said an xbox was a necessity. I said entertainment is a necessity, and I said the xbox entertainment value is higher for someone with no money than for someone with money. It serves the function of always-available cheap entertainment pretty well.
Because poor people need an xbox NOW, and can't wait a couple of months, right? This isn't food, of a roof over their heads, it a video game console!
Which actually is something the poor need far more than the rich.
Seriously, I earn a decent living. As a result, I like to spend my weekends skydiving, and my vacations renting a house for a week at the mountains. I remember when I didn't have any money (relatively speaking, I know there are truly poor people out there who don't have a roof over their heads), and spending time glued to my TV playing video games was a reasonably cheap form of entertainment.
Entertainment is a human necessity. Food and a roof over your head keeps you physically healthy, entertainment keeps you mentally healthy.
My sister is a child nurse who visits young families at their homes to give advice and check on the babies. The "lower classes" live of junk food and use cheap stuff, with plenty of cheap perfumes, insecticides and random chemical crap in their household. Their children suffer from obesity, and even vitamin deficiencies. But NEVER allergies. The rich families with cleaning ladies twice a week, bio-detergents and balanced organic diets however...
I used to work for a factory which made a protein you could get allergic to, so the staff was closely monitored. We had lab technicians who did DNA analyses on nanograms of the stuff, and factory operators who were swimming in tons of the crap. Guess where most allergies occured...
That's probably right, and I think our immune system evolved exposed to all that stuff we're suddenly removing from our environments, so there may be unintended consequences. The summary, however, is right in that there are far too many variables and the result of the study could be a result of the specific environment in Finland and more actual scientific study is needed.
After all, if we're trading anecdotes, my mother was raised in a farm in Brazil right up to her 20s. Today she's allergic to just about everything from pollen to shrimp to bee stings (almost died from that last one once). I was raised in cities my entire life in what I definitely think was an overly clean environment with every one of my toys seriously disinfected every time I or anyone else played with them. Today I'm not allergic to anything, although I did go through a period when I first went to college where I was sick for literally 8 months straight. I'd recover from a cold, go a week without it, and then get something again. Immune system seems to have adapted to the filth I was suddenly living in fairly quick though, and after that the rest of the time in college I never got sick (and the squalor only got worse).
We're finding that even exposure to less-than-concussive force has an effect. Do you really think it would be ethical to conduct the type of experiment that would be required to answer the question with 100% certainty, or should we not err on the side of caution? How would you want YOUR kids to be treated? Would you wack them on the head to "learn them a good lesson?"
Everything I've posted indicates that YES, it is how I would want my children to be treated, and that 100% certainty or safety is most certainly not what I would seek for anything. I'd most certainly want to enroll my kids in all kinds of challenging physical activities, including, for example, gymnastic, which has a chance of paralysis and death. Because that chance is small enough, and the benefits are great.
As for boxing, why should we allow two people to do in a ring something that is illegal everywhere else in public - assault and battery with intent to harm?
The difference isn't the ring. Assault and battery doesn't have the consent of the victim. As for fights between two consenting adults outside of a ring, that is illegal, but it shouldn't be, unless it places others in harm who have not consented to participate (such as in a crowded place).
There is no "safe" level of brain damage, last time I looked.
Then you haven't looked. Out of all the kids who play football, how many of them end up with problems later in life as a result of brain damage acquired while playing? If the answer is "the vast majority report no problems" then any damage they acquired was no big deal and the risk is acceptable.
Boxing is especially execrable - where's the "sport" in beating your opponent unconscious?
Who are you to tell two consenting adults they can't step into a ring? What's your basis for your authority to tell them they can't earn a living fighting?
I skydive for fun. Skydivers are members of the USPA, and we get this magazine every month that comes with incident reports. On average about 2 people die every month in the sport. That's is an incredibly small number considering how many people jump every month, but the sport is not 100% safe. I have made the decision that the risk is acceptable, what authority would anyone have to tell me that it's not?
I really take offense to your wanting to ban pro sports among adults. Even if skydiving had a 50% chance of death with every jump, what right you would have to tell anyone they can't do it? Children, I understand the argument that we must manage their risks, but even then the concept of completely eliminating it is unrealistic and results in more problems than it solves.
According to your theory, they should also be given unfettered access to alcohol during school hours - after all, as long as they can at some level "understand the consequences", it's okay for them to do it in school.
What's the consequence if I start drinking while at work? I'll get fired. What's the consequence if a kid is drinking at school? They'll get expelled. Your alcohol example isn't a drinking age example, it's a situation of whether the environment is appropriate for that behavior.
Should a thirteen year-old have access to alcohol on his own free time? That's a good question. I do believe the existence of a drinking age thing causes alcohol to become more important in a young person's mind. They want access to it precisely because access is limited. They celebrate turning 21 by binge drinking to insane proportions...maybe if drinking was allowed for teenagers under controlled conditions, instead of introduced via keg parties, they would be better off. Or maybe that would just create a problem with teenage alcoholics, since it is a very addictive substance for some. I have no strong opinion here, I can see good arguments for both sides.
Your theory leaves no accounting for either parental guidance, role models, and the fact that individual students have different maturation paths. It also fails to account for peer and teacher pressure. Even adults succumb to peer pressure - look at the behaviour of mobs.
On the contrary. My theory is very dependent on strong parental guidance and role models. I didn't give my parents any trouble at all as a teenager. I didn't drink until it was legal to do so. I got good grades, went to college and paid my own way, without taking money from my parents. Why was I so darn responsible? Maybe you're right and it is simply that different people naturally have a different maturation age. On the other hand, my parents gave me the freedom to screw up along with the responsibilities that came with that freedom fairly early on. They forced me to face consequences when I did screwed up. They taught me to own up to my mistakes when I made them, and they did so by example, so I had good role models in them in addition to the guidance. Maybe that had something to do with my maturing early.
As for peer pressure, when all kids do is what they are told, you're teaching them to succumb to peer pressure. If every decision they make is made by their parents and by their teachers, they're learning to follow other people's decisions, and they'll follow their friends decisions too when the time comes. Learning to resist peer pressure is about learning to make your own decisions for yourself.
Teens who take risks in relatively safe situations exercise the circuitry and develop the skills to âoeput on the brakesâ in more dangerous situations."
What a complete and utter lie. Kids who "get away with something" once not only tend to repeat the risky behaviour - they encourage their peers to. After all, they've "proven" that it's safe.
Yes, I agree completely. The point is that they're not supposed to get away with it. They're supposed to take risks with relatively safe situations, fall face down, and because it was a relatively safe situation, not get themselves killed. Instead, come away hurt, but with a valuable life lesson.
If you shield your kids from making mistakes, they're never going to learn those lessons. And then they're going to encounter situations that are not "relatively safe" and be unable to properly gauge the risk. You need to screw up in life in order to learn, and you should screw up when the consequences aren't too bad, so that you learn before making the really bad mistakes.
You may be old enough to comprehend the risks in high school but still probably not old enough to properly act on them. Young people are stereotypically considered to think themselves invincible for a reason. And "brain damage" is a very vague and hard to appreciate threat, even to a grown adult.
Of course brain development research is mostly correlation so who really knows.
Yeah, but from your own link, "the role of experience is critical in developing the neural connectivity that allows for conscious cognitive control of the emotions and passions of adolescence. Teens who take risks in relatively safe situations exercise the circuitry and develop the skills to “put on the brakes” in more dangerous situations." There were quite a few of us making good choices while we were teenagers. I had the opportunity to get into trouble several times, but didn't. It's possible that parents that let their kids make more of their own decisions earlier (and let them face the consequences of the bad ones) cause them to mature faster in that regard. It's possible people are maturing at the late age of 25 because we're shielding them too much, and they only get that needed experience in college.
First,that is absolutely not true. 13-year-olds are not going to understand the long-term effects of brain injuries.
Thirteen year-olds should be old enough to actually be taught and understand the physiology of the brain. To some extent they are taught that, in fact. In the 90's I got a reasonable introduction to it in sophomore biology and in psychology. You're telling me they wouldn't be able to understand the simple sentence, "this may have permanent future consequences?" They understand it, whether they pay attention to it or not is up to them and their parents.
Second, they also aren't going to have the wherewithal to say NO when a teacher tells them to play a game where head injuries can result.
I remember the rarity being students saying "yes" to requests from their teachers, not the other way around. The ones who play football do so because they like it. The ones like me spent their time in computer, math, and chess clubs. I was told to get involved in more sports (now I wish I had taken that advice), and the jocks were told to participate in more academic extra-curricular activities (and some of them probably with they had taken that advice). We each had no problems saying no to our respective pressure from parents and teachers.
Teenagers think they're invulnerable.
That's because for the most part, they are. Kids should play, and get hurt. They heal fast, and they heal well. Every once in a while a kid gets seriously hurt, and nobody wants that, but seeking 100% safety is stupid. The chances of serious permanent injuries should be low, not non-existent.
And yet studies show that soccer players who header the ball also experience cognitive loss (I posted one example further up-thread). And unlike football players, soccer players don't have any head protection. You don't have to get a concussion to have damage.
Soccer players head the ball. A header is the noun, to head is the verb.
My answer to that is, don't let young kids head the ball when they play soccer. Don't let young kids play football. We already don't let young kids box. By the time you're in high school, you're old enough to understand the risks. Nobody should be forced to take risks with their life, but everyone should be allowed to take them if they so choose.
If you mean logic eliminates God then that is wrong for if you acknowledge you own existence God must exist for God is the essence of the existence.
Axioms: Essence of existence = God
Premise: I exist.
Conclusion: I am God. No, wait...
Premise: Existence exists?
Conclusion: God exists.
Analysis: Based on the provided axiom, you're stating "if p then p", which is a tautology. I reject your axiom that God is "essence of existence" whatever that means. If I reject that as an axiom, and merely use it as another premise, you've got a case of circular logic. (if ((p = q) and p) then q). That's true, but you can't prove p = q by stating p.
The bigger problem is that all the people voting in the election know that they are being fucked. They just do not care. So public laziness and apathy is what is wrecking the country.
Actually, the biggest problem is that people are not apathetic enough. We need the opposite of the get out and vote program. If people who didn't deeply research candidates didn't bother to vote, then only the votes of those who are well-informed would count. You could no longer run an election by saying, "the other guy is a socialist / the other guy doesn't care about poor people" where the vast majority vote for the guy that has the best chance of winning against the guy they hate, without realizing both their records are strikingly similar.
Go Apathy! It's the only thing that could actually make a democratically elected constitutional republic work!
Can't you solve this by sending many photons over a given period of time, and have Victor make the same decision over many photons? If they'd normally match 50% of the time just by chance, but for some group of a million photons they match 67% of the time, isn't that a signal with which you can construct a bitstream?
Both the states you're detecting and whether there will be entanglement or not is purely random. So if your states are 0's and 1's, they'll match 50% of the time. Of those 50% of the time, Victor will be entangling them 50% of the time. After the fact, you'll notice that every time Victor entangled the photons, there was a correlation with the first detectors, but you couldn't know that ahead of the time.
Victor's randomness is generated through quantum effects as well, and I'm no physicist, but based on everything I've read on the subject so far, I suspect trying to make Victor less random (for example, entangling 100% of the time) would break the entanglement. For example, the article mentioned that Alice and Bob randomly positioned their polarization filters, and did not coordinate with each other. I suspect that this is true because coordination would break the experiment, in the same way that the moment you do anything to figure out which slit a photon traveled through in the double-slit experiment, the interference pattern goes away.
You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I, because I have reached the point where I'm pulling things out of the air here. I'm convinced that the rules work to prevent you from sending or transferring any information outside your light-cone, though. The article authors were quick to point out the results of the experiment does not imply causality violation, and that just seems to be the way every one of these quantum entanglement experiments go:)
Slashdot Mirror
>> It's not a derogatory term
Yes it is. Would you literally tell a candidate during a job interview that they are being hired to do "monkey work?" I doubt that. And if you did, any self-respecting person would walk out. Yes, the term is thrown around behind the back from time to time, but never in one's face unless the intent is to belittle one's work.
As I said, I say that about my own work a lot of the time. Sometimes I'm doing cool stuff, most of the time I'm doing repetitive stuff that is necessary nonetheless. It's boring as fuck, but I can't just wash my hands of it, because it needs to be done. If nobody where you work does anything trivial, you don't release anything, because there's no software that isn't 90% trivial.
Expatriates from every country have family, friends, and historical ties to the country they came from. Denying visitation for that reason is morally wrong.
There's a difference between moving to another country and renouncing citizenship. I honestly do think that when you renounce citizenship you should be told to submit in writing the reason you're renouncing citizenship. You should then be banned from entering the country again until the reason you stated no longer applies, at which point you should be allowed to regain it. This rule would allow you to renounce your citizenship for moral reasons (and hell, 'I believe I'm being taxed unfairly' counts, if it's that important to you), but it forces you to stick to your guns. You don't renounce citizenship for convenience, you renounce it when you believe your nation is immoral and needs to fundamentally change, and under those circumstances, you shouldn't want to come back until the situation changes.
That said, I'm with you, and I'm morally opposed to reactionary laws. Anything you do while in an emotionally charged state isn't likely to be well thought-out. This is true for individual decisions, and it's true for governments.
If you are a developer, and your boss thinks programming is "monkey work", I'd be looking for a different job, right now.
I know that's not the question you asked, but that's the answer I have.
Oh, c'mon. Have you never heard the term code monkey? I often have cool new features and challenging problems to work on, but you know what? The vast majority of the time I'm doing boring, easy stuff, that nevertheless needs to be done. I can't afford to just solve the complex problem and then say, "and the rest is trivial" and stop working.
It's not a derogatory term. It's just a way of saying that he wants to outsource the things he doesn't feel like should be a problem, even if he can't interact with the programmers as often as he would if they were in the cubicle 10 steps away.
Whether he's right and that's a good idea, I don't know. I feel like it won't work, but I'm biased. In fact, I question the wisdom of posting such a question in a site with a large concentration of US developers. We're all biased.
Well, when people tell me that nobody uses Google+, I'm quick to point out that's the single best feature about it.
I've always hated being inundated by inane posts, having difficulty finding the signal among all the noise. Plus, everybody who found out your name suddenly wanted to be your facebook friend. I didn't have a public searchable profile, but people I met would ask, "do you have a facebook account?" and I couldn't just flat out lie because somebody else who was in my list of friends would nearby and chime in, "yes, sure he does." Then I'd be put in the situation where I either add the person to my list of faux friends to add further noise the updates I see or tell them, "I don't want to add you" which is seen as offensive.
In Google+, I post my pictures and stuff, share it with the people who are interested in seeing them, and with nobody else. It's not active, in your face, "this is what where I had dinner last night" type posts, because I don't think anybody gives a shit where I had dinner last night. However, when I talk to someone in person that I went on a hiking trip someplace interesting, and they ask me if I have any pictures, I can tell them, "I'll send you a link to the album if you're interested." People also share things with me, but they're not posting as actively as people usually post on facebook, so I only get important updates. Signal to noise ratio is great...and if Google+ suddenly turned as popular as facebook, it would immediately turn to crap, so I hope it never does.
Their real name policy does bother me, but I tolerate it because the only people I ever share stuff with know my real name anyway.
Not really.
Leia: "If you do this bad thing, you probably won't get what you want"
Tarkin: ignores the advice, does the bad thing anyway
(some time later)
Tarkin doesn't have what he wants. He's also dead.
His point is that the people of Alderaan didn't exactly come out unscathed from the exchange. You can't just shrug off the Empire because you know eventually they'll lose. The longer they go before they eventually lose, the more casualties you accumulate in the meantime.
They report no statistical increase in cancer, but an absence of signal is not a signal of absence
What...the...fuck?
You took something you heard people legitimately saying about certain inferences and used in a way that is not legitimate.
Here's an example that is legitimate. A cold will sometimes, but not always, be accompanied by a cough. Therefore a researcher could be trying to examine the incidence of colds by examining the incidence of coughs. Because it's entirely possible to have colds without coughs, you may then legitimately claim that the absence of the signal, the cough, is not a signal of the absence of colds. It's sufficiently correlated that it is a useful metric, but it is not a sufficient metric to draw strong conclusions. The absence of coughs are, however, most certainly indicative of the absence of coughs
No statistical increase in cancer most certainly means no statistical increase in cancer (I'm a member of the tautology club!). It is possible that the the lack in statistical significance was an anomaly (and just how probable an anomaly that would be is quantifiable, and I'm sure is quantified in the paper in the form of a p-value), but it is certainly indicative of no increases in cancer. That is exactly what they were measuring.
"The ONLY point of technology is to make life easier for humans"--by that definition, Apple cranks out the best technology using the best engineering. Deal with it.
Except that Apple makes some damn hard to use, completely unintuitive stuff. The fact that everyone associates Apple with ease of use is a damn impressive triumph of marketing. If you say it enough times, people will believe you.
Their stuff is certainly polished and looks really nice, but looking nice is part of the marketing effort. They remove so many options in an attempt to make the user experience follow their predetermined path that as soon as you need to do anything a different way, you're completely stuck. How do I get to the end of a sentence in a document, the end key keeps taking me to the fucking end of the document. How do I get music on the iPhone? Oh, I need to let iTunes organize it, I can't just drag music files into it. What happens if my mac has multiple users and I plug in my iPhone while another user is logged on? iTunes gives the user a scary message that it will delete everything in the phone if you proceed. But I just want to put the music that is in the database under my wife's account...oh, I need to somehow get the music to show up in my account first because the iPhone can't fucking sync with multiple iTunes databases...
Besides: does this "ease of use" explain why I had to enter in fucking arcane escape sequences into the configs to make the Home, End, PgUp, and PgDn keys on my keyboard work?
Do you have arcane magic that actually make them work properly for all applications? If so, please share. I've googled for this from time to time, but no solution really works. It works for an application, but others remain broken.
They are actively punishing people for purchasing. The length of time of the punishment is not relevant. Pirating it is the only sane option. Paying for punishment is something only a few fetishists participate in.
Yeah, let me get this straight...there are people not buying movies, but by putting an annoying screen on the movies people like me buy, they plan to somehow cause the other guys to start buying them.
The business plan of the studios that signed up to participate is literally:
1. Annoy your paying customers.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!
What actually happened is that they finally managed to make me stop buying movies. There were many close calls before, but this is finally the last straw.
You going to put up the money for me to break my lease, transport my furniture, new living situation, new job, etc?
Well, you get the job first. But relocation expenses for skilled workers are fairly common, even within the US.
That said, I don't buy that we don't have a say. These types of things are happening because literally half the country is in favor of it. The conservatives (not the libertarian conservatives, the other guys) believe we need to take these actions in order to protect the country for terrorism. If you see something the government is doing which actually has negligible support among the population, then you can say we don't have a say. There's really not much of that going around, so the blame still lies with us.
Actually, this makes the "keep a hard copy" argument better than I did. Because among the ways one can "screw up" is to become dead. In a twenty year timespan, this is a non-zero probability.
But if you suddenly die, the people are going to inherit the files in an up-to-date storage format, unless they wait 20 years from the day you died to take a look at it...
If you are thinking about preserving photos for future generations, then "just dump it in a closet" has to be a storage option. If you need more maintenance than just keeping the stash from burning down or being exposed to the elements, then you've created a dead-man delete switch.
Active maintenance of digital files is far easier than preventing hard copies from being exposed to the elements. We're not talking about your photos getting rained on, but just humidity in the air is enough to allow them to fade and yellow out over a period of 20+ years.
If I hand you a working RLL hard disk containing 20 year old GIFs, can you read them? How about a WORM disk? Now, suppose you're not a geek and the question becomes something more like "if I hand you this old electronic thing, what the heck is it?"
Yeah, but if you find yourself in that situation, you screwed up. I have all my files (well, all the ones that I wanted to save) since I started using computers in the 80s in a format I can easily access. That used to be 5.25" floppy discs (with proper backups), then I transferred it all to 3.5" during the transition period where I had both drives available, then I switched the data to cd-r's, and now I just keep them in all in a NAS (still with proper backups, not just the redundancy).
You're supposed to be moving that data to the newer formats as they come along, not just dump it in a closet somewhere.
Dude... when I was a young, broke man, we had better and far cheaper entertainment. We'd hang out somewhere with friends, sometimes playing actual sports (football = $10 or so.) I'd walk in the park with the missus. I'd go to the beach. I'd go hiking. I'd go to the library. There are a zillion ways to get entertainment that is far cheaper and far better for you than sitting stupefied in front of a TV while clutching a gaming controller.
That's all true, you get no argument from me. Although you don't always have friends available, or a place nearby where you can throw the football around without getting killed by passing cars (especially true if you're too young to go out by yourself), or the weather sucks, or you're sick and need to stay in bed...
I get your point, but seriously? An XBox is not a necessity.
I never said an xbox was a necessity. I said entertainment is a necessity, and I said the xbox entertainment value is higher for someone with no money than for someone with money. It serves the function of always-available cheap entertainment pretty well.
Because poor people need an xbox NOW, and can't wait a couple of months, right?
This isn't food, of a roof over their heads, it a video game console!
Which actually is something the poor need far more than the rich.
Seriously, I earn a decent living. As a result, I like to spend my weekends skydiving, and my vacations renting a house for a week at the mountains. I remember when I didn't have any money (relatively speaking, I know there are truly poor people out there who don't have a roof over their heads), and spending time glued to my TV playing video games was a reasonably cheap form of entertainment.
Entertainment is a human necessity. Food and a roof over your head keeps you physically healthy, entertainment keeps you mentally healthy.
My sister is a child nurse who visits young families at their homes to give advice and check on the babies. The "lower classes" live of junk food and use cheap stuff, with plenty of cheap perfumes, insecticides and random chemical crap in their household. Their children suffer from obesity, and even vitamin deficiencies. But NEVER allergies. The rich families with cleaning ladies twice a week, bio-detergents and balanced organic diets however...
I used to work for a factory which made a protein you could get allergic to, so the staff was closely monitored. We had lab technicians who did DNA analyses on nanograms of the stuff, and factory operators who were swimming in tons of the crap. Guess where most allergies occured...
That's probably right, and I think our immune system evolved exposed to all that stuff we're suddenly removing from our environments, so there may be unintended consequences. The summary, however, is right in that there are far too many variables and the result of the study could be a result of the specific environment in Finland and more actual scientific study is needed.
After all, if we're trading anecdotes, my mother was raised in a farm in Brazil right up to her 20s. Today she's allergic to just about everything from pollen to shrimp to bee stings (almost died from that last one once). I was raised in cities my entire life in what I definitely think was an overly clean environment with every one of my toys seriously disinfected every time I or anyone else played with them. Today I'm not allergic to anything, although I did go through a period when I first went to college where I was sick for literally 8 months straight. I'd recover from a cold, go a week without it, and then get something again. Immune system seems to have adapted to the filth I was suddenly living in fairly quick though, and after that the rest of the time in college I never got sick (and the squalor only got worse).
We're finding that even exposure to less-than-concussive force has an effect. Do you really think it would be ethical to conduct the type of experiment that would be required to answer the question with 100% certainty, or should we not err on the side of caution? How would you want YOUR kids to be treated? Would you wack them on the head to "learn them a good lesson?"
Everything I've posted indicates that YES, it is how I would want my children to be treated, and that 100% certainty or safety is most certainly not what I would seek for anything. I'd most certainly want to enroll my kids in all kinds of challenging physical activities, including, for example, gymnastic, which has a chance of paralysis and death. Because that chance is small enough, and the benefits are great.
As for boxing, why should we allow two people to do in a ring something that is illegal everywhere else in public - assault and battery with intent to harm?
The difference isn't the ring. Assault and battery doesn't have the consent of the victim. As for fights between two consenting adults outside of a ring, that is illegal, but it shouldn't be, unless it places others in harm who have not consented to participate (such as in a crowded place).
There is no "safe" level of brain damage, last time I looked.
Then you haven't looked. Out of all the kids who play football, how many of them end up with problems later in life as a result of brain damage acquired while playing? If the answer is "the vast majority report no problems" then any damage they acquired was no big deal and the risk is acceptable.
Boxing is especially execrable - where's the "sport" in beating your opponent unconscious?
Who are you to tell two consenting adults they can't step into a ring? What's your basis for your authority to tell them they can't earn a living fighting?
I skydive for fun. Skydivers are members of the USPA, and we get this magazine every month that comes with incident reports. On average about 2 people die every month in the sport. That's is an incredibly small number considering how many people jump every month, but the sport is not 100% safe. I have made the decision that the risk is acceptable, what authority would anyone have to tell me that it's not?
I really take offense to your wanting to ban pro sports among adults. Even if skydiving had a 50% chance of death with every jump, what right you would have to tell anyone they can't do it? Children, I understand the argument that we must manage their risks, but even then the concept of completely eliminating it is unrealistic and results in more problems than it solves.
According to your theory, they should also be given unfettered access to alcohol during school hours - after all, as long as they can at some level "understand the consequences", it's okay for them to do it in school.
What's the consequence if I start drinking while at work? I'll get fired. What's the consequence if a kid is drinking at school? They'll get expelled. Your alcohol example isn't a drinking age example, it's a situation of whether the environment is appropriate for that behavior.
Should a thirteen year-old have access to alcohol on his own free time? That's a good question. I do believe the existence of a drinking age thing causes alcohol to become more important in a young person's mind. They want access to it precisely because access is limited. They celebrate turning 21 by binge drinking to insane proportions...maybe if drinking was allowed for teenagers under controlled conditions, instead of introduced via keg parties, they would be better off. Or maybe that would just create a problem with teenage alcoholics, since it is a very addictive substance for some. I have no strong opinion here, I can see good arguments for both sides.
Your theory leaves no accounting for either parental guidance, role models, and the fact that individual students have different maturation paths. It also fails to account for peer and teacher pressure. Even adults succumb to peer pressure - look at the behaviour of mobs.
On the contrary. My theory is very dependent on strong parental guidance and role models. I didn't give my parents any trouble at all as a teenager. I didn't drink until it was legal to do so. I got good grades, went to college and paid my own way, without taking money from my parents. Why was I so darn responsible? Maybe you're right and it is simply that different people naturally have a different maturation age. On the other hand, my parents gave me the freedom to screw up along with the responsibilities that came with that freedom fairly early on. They forced me to face consequences when I did screwed up. They taught me to own up to my mistakes when I made them, and they did so by example, so I had good role models in them in addition to the guidance. Maybe that had something to do with my maturing early.
As for peer pressure, when all kids do is what they are told, you're teaching them to succumb to peer pressure. If every decision they make is made by their parents and by their teachers, they're learning to follow other people's decisions, and they'll follow their friends decisions too when the time comes. Learning to resist peer pressure is about learning to make your own decisions for yourself.
What a complete and utter lie. Kids who "get away with something" once not only tend to repeat the risky behaviour - they encourage their peers to. After all, they've "proven" that it's safe.
Yes, I agree completely. The point is that they're not supposed to get away with it. They're supposed to take risks with relatively safe situations, fall face down, and because it was a relatively safe situation, not get themselves killed. Instead, come away hurt, but with a valuable life lesson.
If you shield your kids from making mistakes, they're never going to learn those lessons. And then they're going to encounter situations that are not "relatively safe" and be unable to properly gauge the risk. You need to screw up in life in order to learn, and you should screw up when the consequences aren't too bad, so that you learn before making the really bad mistakes.
You may be old enough to comprehend the risks in high school but still probably not old enough to properly act on them.
Young people are stereotypically considered to think themselves invincible for a reason. And "brain damage" is a very vague and hard to appreciate threat, even to a grown adult.
Mainly though, it's traditionally thought that your brain doesn't fully develop the ability to manage risks until about the age of 25.
Source: http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/adolescent_brain/Development/prefrontal_cortex/
Of course brain development research is mostly correlation so who really knows.
Yeah, but from your own link, "the role of experience is critical in developing the neural connectivity that allows for conscious cognitive control of the emotions and passions of adolescence. Teens who take risks in relatively safe situations exercise the circuitry and develop the skills to “put on the brakes” in more dangerous situations." There were quite a few of us making good choices while we were teenagers. I had the opportunity to get into trouble several times, but didn't. It's possible that parents that let their kids make more of their own decisions earlier (and let them face the consequences of the bad ones) cause them to mature faster in that regard. It's possible people are maturing at the late age of 25 because we're shielding them too much, and they only get that needed experience in college.
First,that is absolutely not true. 13-year-olds are not going to understand the long-term effects of brain injuries.
Thirteen year-olds should be old enough to actually be taught and understand the physiology of the brain. To some extent they are taught that, in fact. In the 90's I got a reasonable introduction to it in sophomore biology and in psychology. You're telling me they wouldn't be able to understand the simple sentence, "this may have permanent future consequences?" They understand it, whether they pay attention to it or not is up to them and their parents.
Second, they also aren't going to have the wherewithal to say NO when a teacher tells them to play a game where head injuries can result.
I remember the rarity being students saying "yes" to requests from their teachers, not the other way around. The ones who play football do so because they like it. The ones like me spent their time in computer, math, and chess clubs. I was told to get involved in more sports (now I wish I had taken that advice), and the jocks were told to participate in more academic extra-curricular activities (and some of them probably with they had taken that advice). We each had no problems saying no to our respective pressure from parents and teachers.
Teenagers think they're invulnerable.
That's because for the most part, they are. Kids should play, and get hurt. They heal fast, and they heal well. Every once in a while a kid gets seriously hurt, and nobody wants that, but seeking 100% safety is stupid. The chances of serious permanent injuries should be low, not non-existent.
And yet studies show that soccer players who header the ball also experience cognitive loss (I posted one example further up-thread). And unlike football players, soccer players don't have any head protection. You don't have to get a concussion to have damage.
Soccer players head the ball. A header is the noun, to head is the verb.
My answer to that is, don't let young kids head the ball when they play soccer. Don't let young kids play football. We already don't let young kids box. By the time you're in high school, you're old enough to understand the risks. Nobody should be forced to take risks with their life, but everyone should be allowed to take them if they so choose.
If you mean logic eliminates God then that is wrong for if you acknowledge you own existence God must exist for God is the essence of the existence.
Axioms: Essence of existence = God
Premise: I exist.
Conclusion: I am God. No, wait...
Premise: Existence exists?
Conclusion: God exists.
Analysis: Based on the provided axiom, you're stating "if p then p", which is a tautology. I reject your axiom that God is "essence of existence" whatever that means. If I reject that as an axiom, and merely use it as another premise, you've got a case of circular logic. (if ((p = q) and p) then q). That's true, but you can't prove p = q by stating p.
The bigger problem is that all the people voting in the election know that they are being fucked. They just do not care.
So public laziness and apathy is what is wrecking the country.
Actually, the biggest problem is that people are not apathetic enough. We need the opposite of the get out and vote program. If people who didn't deeply research candidates didn't bother to vote, then only the votes of those who are well-informed would count. You could no longer run an election by saying, "the other guy is a socialist / the other guy doesn't care about poor people" where the vast majority vote for the guy that has the best chance of winning against the guy they hate, without realizing both their records are strikingly similar.
Go Apathy! It's the only thing that could actually make a democratically elected constitutional republic work!
Can't you solve this by sending many photons over a given period of time, and have Victor make the same decision over many photons? If they'd normally match 50% of the time just by chance, but for some group of a million photons they match 67% of the time, isn't that a signal with which you can construct a bitstream?
Both the states you're detecting and whether there will be entanglement or not is purely random. So if your states are 0's and 1's, they'll match 50% of the time. Of those 50% of the time, Victor will be entangling them 50% of the time. After the fact, you'll notice that every time Victor entangled the photons, there was a correlation with the first detectors, but you couldn't know that ahead of the time.
Victor's randomness is generated through quantum effects as well, and I'm no physicist, but based on everything I've read on the subject so far, I suspect trying to make Victor less random (for example, entangling 100% of the time) would break the entanglement. For example, the article mentioned that Alice and Bob randomly positioned their polarization filters, and did not coordinate with each other. I suspect that this is true because coordination would break the experiment, in the same way that the moment you do anything to figure out which slit a photon traveled through in the double-slit experiment, the interference pattern goes away.
You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable than I, because I have reached the point where I'm pulling things out of the air here. I'm convinced that the rules work to prevent you from sending or transferring any information outside your light-cone, though. The article authors were quick to point out the results of the experiment does not imply causality violation, and that just seems to be the way every one of these quantum entanglement experiments go :)