Facebook is not a good example of what targeted ads should be. Google targets ads (though I do have problems with some of their ads, but in general they are OK. Hopefully in about 5 years or so they will get good enough that I will actually click on them when I see them). Facebook targets spam.
While what you say is true, you seem to imply that the advertiser and customer interests are mutually exclusive. If a company offers me a product that I want, then I am happy to give them money and they are happy to take it from me. Everyone wins. I think most people would agree that they prefer to see ads for things they want to buy, and would prefer not to see ads for stuff they don't want to buy. The problem comes when your privacy is invaded to target ads. Or, more specifically, when the information used to target the ads is used in a way the customer does not approve of or is sold to the highest bidder.
AEDs only shock a live heart. Ventricular Fibrillation is where the heart is not contracting in a coordinated manner (but is still contracting). If they don't sense anything in the heart, then it doesn't shock. I guess doctors could make a mistake and try to defibrillate someone with an artificial heart. But, by the time they got the paddles I would hope they would figure out that the person has an artificial heart.
I had heard those things too. I don't doubt that alcohol is a gateway drug. But, I think the only reason pot may be a gateway just because it is illegal. If it were made legal, I don't think there would be a reason for people to "move on" from pot to harder drugs.
Also, do you have a link for that study. Not that I doubt its results, I just would like to read it and have it on hand.
You don't get it. The US doesn't have to actually do anything to Iran. Israel is sitting there waiting for ANY excuse to bomb them. All the US has to do is let go of their leash and let them act.
Also, this is politics. Every word that he says is recorded and analyzed by probably every country. Everything he says has to be ultra-polite and not cause any offense to anyone. That IS strong language for a politician, and the Iranians will realize that.
To put it in perspective... Most people know at least one person who is very reserved and careful about everything they say. They never make outburst and never curse. But, if this person does have an outburst, even saying something like "Oh crap!", everyone who knows them becomes nervous. You can't look at language directly with politicians. It is how it deviates from their usual language that is important.
I think that pot is a gateway drug, but not for the reasons espoused by most other people who say it is. Pot is safe. It is not addictive and does not cause many health problems (relatively). But, THC is a schedule I drug while cocaine is a schedule II drug. Mushrooms are also schedule I (I think). I have seen quite a few people where pot has led to mushrooms which led to acid and then on to other things (some hard drugs). The reason this happens is because they are being told that drugs are bad, when they aren't. Or, more accurately, they are being told that drugs are much worse than they are, when some aren't. This leads them to wonder which other drugs "actually aren't so bad". If the government actually told the truth about drugs, then I think more people might smoke pot, but less people would move on to harder and more dangerous things. They would also have more respect for what the government tells them and listen to what the establishment says (If you always give good advice, usually people will listen. If you sometimes give bad advice, people will never listen, even if the advice is good).
I will try to explain this for you. If you have 8000 people in control and 8000 in placebo then you have the same number of people in each group. It is all good. If 200 are exposed to the virus in the first group and 200 in the second group, then you have the same number of people so it is all good. If of those people exposed you have 140 who used condoms correctly each time, you are still all good. You have the same breakdown of people that have the same risk of getting the disease, and the only thing that is different is whether they get the vaccine or not.
This doesn't always work so well in theory, but if you have 16,000 people split into two groups, then you have a pretty low probability of the results being skewed just by chance (that is what confidence interval means by the way).
That is why they do the study with a large group of people. If you separate the people into groups randomly, then it becomes extremely unlikely that the groups will have a significantly higher percentage of a certain type of people than another. But they will probably do this study again, with a larger group of people, to make sure that this was not a fluke. So, it is possible that the placebo group was just more exposed to the virus, but not likely.
Then if I want to see them I have to go search for them in the task bar. I am not saying that I think little screens would be in any way worth the extra cost (at this point). But, I can see being very useful for some things if they were relatively cheap.
I actually don't like having the windows bar at the bottom, but I find the auto-hide thingy too annoying. If I am doing work, I don't like to have distracting things all over my screen. I tend to be more productive if my screen is less cluttered. The screen is my area of focus. If I had other, smaller screens, I could put widgets on them and they would be easily accessible. But, I could completely ignore them better when I am trying to focus, and it would also make my screen look a lot less cluttered.
Your parents calling you regularly to "make sure" of what you are doing is a leash. How you are describing that you would use this is a leash. Kids are going to lie to you. Live with that fact. They are growing up and learning how to cope with the world, and lying is a part of that. How often do you lie in your everyday life? Or tell the truth in a way to give someone the wrong impression? Or just omit parts of the truth to not tell the whole story? Kids have to learn how to do that, and the only way to learn is to practice. And I bet you that within a week some kid is going to put the watch on a friend's dog and then go out to a party and get drunk. Then you don't even have to tell your parents why you were out late. They will "know" you were at your friend's house.
Also, if you rely on a gps wristwatch to keep them in check, what do you think is going to happen when they don't have to wear the gps anymore? The reason I don't like parents who use a "leash" is because they usually use it as a prop for their bad parenting. And it results in kids going to college and getting put in the hospital for alcohol poisoning (or worse) because they didn't know how to control themselves without mommy or daddy looking over their shoulder. And then mommy and daddy sue everyone in sight over their bad parenting.
I am not necessarily opposed to the wristwatch, I am more opposed to what a lot of parent will use it for.
I don't have a problem with this watch, as long as it was used at tool and not a leash
I think that's why people are against it. Because it will probably be used as a leash. It will be one more way of controlling your kids in lieu of good parenting.
If artillery has problems getting through carbon nanotubes, oxyaluminum nitride, and spinel, how long until the artillery itself is made of those materials?
So, are you saying that whips were created to get through leather armor? If so, I think you need some sort of cite. If not, it is best if you take the post in context of what was said in the previous post (and before that and before that all the way up to OP). That the board is set up where you reply to comments. So that you don't have to explicitly say what the entire context of your statement is.
This assumes that you are using a resistance heater. If you use a heat pump (usually a COP of around 3-4) then you are still using extra power. (Every extra watt that you use with an incandescent could have done the same as between 1/3 to 1/4 of a watt with a heat pump).
Cancer is the uncontrolled division of cells. I could see an evolutionary incentive to stop all (or most) cell division at some point, so that the cells that are dividing (cancer) can be controlled and eliminated by the body.
But I do agree with you. I always thought they had it wrong too.
Exactly. While I can choose to pay money for whatever improvements that IBM has made to OpenOffice, I can also choose not to and get a free alternative. This gives me the choice to only pay IBM if their product is good, instead of paying for a program that plays nice with a file format. If I want to edit MS Office documents, I have to buy the program from Microsoft. No matter how good or bad it is.
Also, I can open any of those document formats on my linux computer using open source programs and "display" it correctly. If I get a word document (or excel or ppt) then I am lucky if it has all the functionality (not to mention actually formatted the same).
Yeah... secret to just your friends or anyone who will pay for it. A lot of big companies these days weed out employees by getting a profile of them from facebook.
I am confused about your point. Energy is just power * time. So, if he runs this thing for an hour (assuming it actually does what the article says it does, which is a huge assumption) then he will have 18watt-hour of energy (or 64.8 kJoule). Are you saying that you think it will burn up in an hour, because supposedly it can last a week or so.
I went to Georgia Tech (Engineering, not CS) and had no significant problems with running linux. I had to go to the computer lab to use some of the proprietary software, but I didn't want to buy it anyway so I probably would have done the same thing if I ran windows. Some teachers still wanted word documents, but most would accept PDFs. I had no problem interfacing with the infrastructure, but GT is known for CS so I don't think it is representative.
Slashdot Mirror
Facebook is not a good example of what targeted ads should be. Google targets ads (though I do have problems with some of their ads, but in general they are OK. Hopefully in about 5 years or so they will get good enough that I will actually click on them when I see them). Facebook targets spam.
While what you say is true, you seem to imply that the advertiser and customer interests are mutually exclusive. If a company offers me a product that I want, then I am happy to give them money and they are happy to take it from me. Everyone wins. I think most people would agree that they prefer to see ads for things they want to buy, and would prefer not to see ads for stuff they don't want to buy. The problem comes when your privacy is invaded to target ads. Or, more specifically, when the information used to target the ads is used in a way the customer does not approve of or is sold to the highest bidder.
AEDs only shock a live heart. Ventricular Fibrillation is where the heart is not contracting in a coordinated manner (but is still contracting). If they don't sense anything in the heart, then it doesn't shock. I guess doctors could make a mistake and try to defibrillate someone with an artificial heart. But, by the time they got the paddles I would hope they would figure out that the person has an artificial heart.
It was patented. To get a patent, you are supposed to document completely enough that a person in that field could recreate it.
I had heard those things too. I don't doubt that alcohol is a gateway drug. But, I think the only reason pot may be a gateway just because it is illegal. If it were made legal, I don't think there would be a reason for people to "move on" from pot to harder drugs.
Also, do you have a link for that study. Not that I doubt its results, I just would like to read it and have it on hand.
You don't get it. The US doesn't have to actually do anything to Iran. Israel is sitting there waiting for ANY excuse to bomb them. All the US has to do is let go of their leash and let them act.
Also, this is politics. Every word that he says is recorded and analyzed by probably every country. Everything he says has to be ultra-polite and not cause any offense to anyone. That IS strong language for a politician, and the Iranians will realize that.
To put it in perspective... Most people know at least one person who is very reserved and careful about everything they say. They never make outburst and never curse. But, if this person does have an outburst, even saying something like "Oh crap!", everyone who knows them becomes nervous. You can't look at language directly with politicians. It is how it deviates from their usual language that is important.
I think that pot is a gateway drug, but not for the reasons espoused by most other people who say it is. Pot is safe. It is not addictive and does not cause many health problems (relatively). But, THC is a schedule I drug while cocaine is a schedule II drug. Mushrooms are also schedule I (I think). I have seen quite a few people where pot has led to mushrooms which led to acid and then on to other things (some hard drugs). The reason this happens is because they are being told that drugs are bad, when they aren't. Or, more accurately, they are being told that drugs are much worse than they are, when some aren't. This leads them to wonder which other drugs "actually aren't so bad". If the government actually told the truth about drugs, then I think more people might smoke pot, but less people would move on to harder and more dangerous things. They would also have more respect for what the government tells them and listen to what the establishment says (If you always give good advice, usually people will listen. If you sometimes give bad advice, people will never listen, even if the advice is good).
This doesn't always work so well in theory, but if you have 16,000 people split into two groups, then you have a pretty low probability of the results being skewed just by chance (that is what confidence interval means by the way).
That is why they do the study with a large group of people. If you separate the people into groups randomly, then it becomes extremely unlikely that the groups will have a significantly higher percentage of a certain type of people than another. But they will probably do this study again, with a larger group of people, to make sure that this was not a fluke. So, it is possible that the placebo group was just more exposed to the virus, but not likely.
Then if I want to see them I have to go search for them in the task bar. I am not saying that I think little screens would be in any way worth the extra cost (at this point). But, I can see being very useful for some things if they were relatively cheap.
I actually don't like having the windows bar at the bottom, but I find the auto-hide thingy too annoying. If I am doing work, I don't like to have distracting things all over my screen. I tend to be more productive if my screen is less cluttered. The screen is my area of focus. If I had other, smaller screens, I could put widgets on them and they would be easily accessible. But, I could completely ignore them better when I am trying to focus, and it would also make my screen look a lot less cluttered.
whoosh
Your parents calling you regularly to "make sure" of what you are doing is a leash. How you are describing that you would use this is a leash. Kids are going to lie to you. Live with that fact. They are growing up and learning how to cope with the world, and lying is a part of that. How often do you lie in your everyday life? Or tell the truth in a way to give someone the wrong impression? Or just omit parts of the truth to not tell the whole story? Kids have to learn how to do that, and the only way to learn is to practice. And I bet you that within a week some kid is going to put the watch on a friend's dog and then go out to a party and get drunk. Then you don't even have to tell your parents why you were out late. They will "know" you were at your friend's house.
Also, if you rely on a gps wristwatch to keep them in check, what do you think is going to happen when they don't have to wear the gps anymore? The reason I don't like parents who use a "leash" is because they usually use it as a prop for their bad parenting. And it results in kids going to college and getting put in the hospital for alcohol poisoning (or worse) because they didn't know how to control themselves without mommy or daddy looking over their shoulder. And then mommy and daddy sue everyone in sight over their bad parenting.
I am not necessarily opposed to the wristwatch, I am more opposed to what a lot of parent will use it for.
I don't have a problem with this watch, as long as it was used at tool and not a leash
I think that's why people are against it. Because it will probably be used as a leash. It will be one more way of controlling your kids in lieu of good parenting.
If you will recall the OP...
If artillery has problems getting through carbon nanotubes, oxyaluminum nitride, and spinel, how long until the artillery itself is made of those materials?
So, are you saying that whips were created to get through leather armor? If so, I think you need some sort of cite. If not, it is best if you take the post in context of what was said in the previous post (and before that and before that all the way up to OP). That the board is set up where you reply to comments. So that you don't have to explicitly say what the entire context of your statement is.
SEER is a made-up number (I think btu/watt or something crazy). You want COP, which is usually around 3-4.
This assumes that you are using a resistance heater. If you use a heat pump (usually a COP of around 3-4) then you are still using extra power. (Every extra watt that you use with an incandescent could have done the same as between 1/3 to 1/4 of a watt with a heat pump).
Cancer is the uncontrolled division of cells. I could see an evolutionary incentive to stop all (or most) cell division at some point, so that the cells that are dividing (cancer) can be controlled and eliminated by the body.
But I do agree with you. I always thought they had it wrong too.
Exactly. While I can choose to pay money for whatever improvements that IBM has made to OpenOffice, I can also choose not to and get a free alternative. This gives me the choice to only pay IBM if their product is good, instead of paying for a program that plays nice with a file format. If I want to edit MS Office documents, I have to buy the program from Microsoft. No matter how good or bad it is.
Really? 90s? You do realise it is 2009, right. Software can change A LOT in 10+ years.
Also, I can open any of those document formats on my linux computer using open source programs and "display" it correctly. If I get a word document (or excel or ppt) then I am lucky if it has all the functionality (not to mention actually formatted the same).
They can filter out annoying people! Can I get one of those for real life?
Yeah... secret to just your friends or anyone who will pay for it. A lot of big companies these days weed out employees by getting a profile of them from facebook.
I am confused about your point. Energy is just power * time. So, if he runs this thing for an hour (assuming it actually does what the article says it does, which is a huge assumption) then he will have 18watt-hour of energy (or 64.8 kJoule). Are you saying that you think it will burn up in an hour, because supposedly it can last a week or so.
I went to Georgia Tech (Engineering, not CS) and had no significant problems with running linux. I had to go to the computer lab to use some of the proprietary software, but I didn't want to buy it anyway so I probably would have done the same thing if I ran windows. Some teachers still wanted word documents, but most would accept PDFs. I had no problem interfacing with the infrastructure, but GT is known for CS so I don't think it is representative.