After reading that second, run-on sentence with BP and GGP, I'm confused about who I was talking about. Gonna need a car metaphor to straighten me out;)
Refusing to help start a spying program is quite a bit different than refusing to hand over access to the city's systems. If you can't see the difference, I really hope for your sake you don't work in an IT department, or if you do you have a realy good lawyer.
You're Negative Nelly attitude is not going to improve the situation.
I was not saying "This can't work because of the scale of the problem" I was saying "Maybe they're not trying this because of the scale of the problem."
Big difference there. Or not, because frankly, nothing any of us say here is going to actually improve the situation. My negative post is not going to dissuade BP from buying this company and cleaning up the mess even if we accept that it would do anything. Sorry to be a Realistic Ralph here.
The hair mats are reusable. The real problem is manufacturing the mats now that the raw material is available. Who cares if it takes a while to clean this mess up.
There are many factors here that we don't know, which is why I didn't go further into it. Anyway, they're reusable up to 100 times, so that's 450,000 gallons. Keep in mind though that the oil is also not a one-time thing. It's leaking 100,000 gallons per day, or at least it was. So at best this hair solution would reduce the problem by just four days, likely much less than that depending on how well it could be deployed, how effective the hair was at absorbing more oil in the actual environment (IE, not just dunked into a tank of pure oil) and how much it's being overmarketed here.
This is not a solution for the gulf oil problem.
Furthermore, why the trollish tone? Upset about your favorite Neon Evangelion character getting downplayed in the new series?
Sorry, I was unclear right there. I mean the place making these hair sponges was non-profit. You're right that BP is about as far as you can get from non-profit.
Who would want to work for BP? They're non-profit, meaning they might be motivated more by helping the environment than greenwashing a terrible company. BP also has a track record of cutting every corner, which obviously led to the current problem, they're probably inclined to spend just as much as they need to squeeze out of liabiltiy, and then they'll get right back to buisiness as usual. Even if BP realized the potential here to develop an effective technology that would prevent them from losing money to lawsuits in future oil spills (the only way such an acquisition would be anything more than for show), they'd turn it into a depressing work environment kicking out all the current employees.
Anyway, I'm guessing the scale of the problem is beyond putting hair on it to solve the problem. 18,000 pounds of hair which can theoretically soak up 18,000 quarts of oil in a minute, or 4,500 gallons, that isn't much compared to the 100,000 gallons leaking out per day.
Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.
What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico. I see industry messing up on the exact same scale or bigger than the government messes up.
I'm not saying "Some companies have messed up so lets give it all over to the government," I'm just saying "Government takes over an industry" isn't as scary to me as it once was.
The original article was from Fox News - I'm just amazed they realised it was a damn, and not a giant vacuum cleaner given the quality of their fact checking.
Coming up next, are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction hidden in the beaver sadDAM?!?
Or just produce people with the CCR5-32 gene variant.
Didn't we find out that would work through a screening process in humans pretty similar to what jameskojiro suggested? In other words, do we know that people with the CCR5-32 gene variant are immune because out of the millions of people with HIV, there are a few people we've found are immune and those people have that gene variant?
Unfortunately I don't really have the expertise to do ANYTHING related to it, and I'm not sure many do.
Judging from TFA, if you're posting here you probably have at least most of the expertise to do it, quoting:
Models can be trained using the records of 1,000 patients. To predict an improvement in a patient's viral load, competitors will be provided with data on the nucleotide sequences of their Reverse Transcriptase (RT) their Protease (PR) and their viral load and CD4 count at the beginning of therapy. There is a brief discussion of the science of these variables in the Background section, but no knowledge of biology is necessary to succeed in this competition. Competitors' predictions will be tested on a dataset containing 692 patients.
Sounds like they give you the data and tell you what you're looking for, and then you tell them when you've found them.
I'm not sure you can call it crowdsourcing when the number of people who can get involved are so small. Maybe a contest or an open research project or something.
That may be why they don't, but "biolgeek" does. The page specifically calls it a "competition" and "contest." No mention of crowdsourcing, which doesn't mean a lot to most people.
Why exactly is it that the corporate apologists *always* fall back on either a strawman or a false dichotomy?
Probably because of their amateur status. I get the sense that Shakrai isn't actually on any corporate payroll. Were he given a paycheck to do this full time, I'm sure he'd develop other techniques.
Yeah, but often the "idea" is really just "Hey, you know that successful game by someone else? Let's make that!"
Or sometimes it's
"Hey, you know which world war is my favorite? That's right, number two, how did you know?!? We gotta make a game about it!"
And that's not to discount the all-too-common "idea" of
"That game that we made, the one that made actual money? Let's make a sequel! What's that? The main character died? And so did everyone else? Everybody in the whole world?... I smell PREQUELSEQUEL!!!
Oh yeah, and then the
"I just realized that if you put an old CD... say 'Ace of Base'... into a white jewel case and label it 'The Ace of Base wii game', someone will actually buy it and you will make money!"
There are so many games out there that suck because they were made off of brain dead concepts, it's very tempting to assume that the one thing the videogame industry lacks is someone with ideas.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to try to download the "Aliens invade the earth but a strong silent type with a gun saves the day #495" beta.
And nobody will do anything about anything because apathy rules.
And also... really, what can you do? Bike everywhere while praying the coal industry will actually develop real-no-foolin'-seriously-this-time-it's-not-just-a-marketing-scam clean coal?
there are plenty of consumers who need only the carrot (the prospect that their payment will be rewarded by production of future works) to pay fairly. Unfortunately most established industries are managed by people who like you who continue to deny what's actually happening with the belief that their philosophy will prove true in the end, and therefore always fall back to the stick method of threatening, DRM-encumbering, and generally treating their (potential) customers like criminals.
To their credit, I, a potential customer, am a criminal (though less in terms of pirating and more in terms of public urination) and I hate carrots.
Because it's cool to hate Apple, or at least 'typical' Apple customers
There's also a bit of hate on opera. While there's not as much compared to apple, when you factor in market shares, they're probably a lot closer.
To make a car analogy, you don't see much hate on the Malaysian Proton Wira in the states, but compared with how many there are driving around, there's probably a good amount of hate compared to a Ford Taurus.
It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office
Even if we accept that he wasn't actually doing his "job" (aka waiting while his peers pointlessly got up on a soapbox lecturing them all when everyone knew how everyone was going to vote the week before, and then voting how he said he was going to vote) then that wasted, what, $5 taxpayer money total?
If this guy hasn't wasted more than $5 taxpayer money an hour in his time in office, then he's probably still doing better than the average politician. That he wasn't using his time to draft up a subsidy to the sugar industry or some other pork project along those lines to me means he's probably doing a better job than most of his peers.
Speaking of Fark, I think this "News story" is somewhat beneath the standards of Fark.
A politician otes to invade our personal privacy? Zzzzz. A politician sides with corporate interests against the public at large? Zzzz. A politician makes a stupid incorrect statement about sciences, history, geography, or technology? Sometimes interesting. A politician is caught with his pants down in some way? ZOMG NEWS!
Leave that line of thinking with cable news and tabloids.
We haven't had effective government regulation of anything since Ronald Reagan.
[can't resist]
The fact that we had it before a republican president to me indicates that it works in principle, we just need to figure out how the republican broke it.
[/can't resist]
Sorry for that. In seriousness, I'm not going to argue in general that government regulation is good, since obviously that's not true. In this area though, I think there are plenty of obvious harms and bad scenarios where regulation -would- be a good thing and in fact essential. Even a minimalist regulatory authority against the evil telecoms is better than nothing. Sure, we won't get an FCC or any government agency that actually effectively promotes competition in this area, but a "No, you can't block access to all news sites but 'comcastnews.com'" is more than we'd get without any government oversight.
"the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC's authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy."
And... so?
Speaking as an extremely annoyed liberal, the point would be obvious if you were an elected democrat. It's a fight...WE SURRENDER OH GOOD GOD WE SURRENDER DON'T HURT MEEEEE!!!!!!!!
In this case, given that tried to blackmail them after not being hired, yes. In general though, I'd say past criminal record is a terrible method of deciding who cooks the fries and who gets to move ahead. Some crimes anyway. Some corporate fraud, sure, force them to live under a bridge.
Slashdot Mirror
After reading that second, run-on sentence with BP and GGP, I'm confused about who I was talking about. Gonna need a car metaphor to straighten me out ;)
You mean, just like Terry Childs did?
Refusing to help start a spying program is quite a bit different than refusing to hand over access to the city's systems. If you can't see the difference, I really hope for your sake you don't work in an IT department, or if you do you have a realy good lawyer.
You're Negative Nelly attitude is not going to improve the situation.
I was not saying "This can't work because of the scale of the problem" I was saying "Maybe they're not trying this because of the scale of the problem."
Big difference there. Or not, because frankly, nothing any of us say here is going to actually improve the situation. My negative post is not going to dissuade BP from buying this company and cleaning up the mess even if we accept that it would do anything. Sorry to be a Realistic Ralph here.
The hair mats are reusable. The real problem is manufacturing the mats now that the raw material is available. Who cares if it takes a while to clean this mess up.
There are many factors here that we don't know, which is why I didn't go further into it. Anyway, they're reusable up to 100 times, so that's 450,000 gallons. Keep in mind though that the oil is also not a one-time thing. It's leaking 100,000 gallons per day, or at least it was. So at best this hair solution would reduce the problem by just four days, likely much less than that depending on how well it could be deployed, how effective the hair was at absorbing more oil in the actual environment (IE, not just dunked into a tank of pure oil) and how much it's being overmarketed here.
This is not a solution for the gulf oil problem.
Furthermore, why the trollish tone? Upset about your favorite Neon Evangelion character getting downplayed in the new series?
Sorry, I was unclear right there. I mean the place making these hair sponges was non-profit. You're right that BP is about as far as you can get from non-profit.
Who would want to work for BP? They're non-profit, meaning they might be motivated more by helping the environment than greenwashing a terrible company. BP also has a track record of cutting every corner, which obviously led to the current problem, they're probably inclined to spend just as much as they need to squeeze out of liabiltiy, and then they'll get right back to buisiness as usual. Even if BP realized the potential here to develop an effective technology that would prevent them from losing money to lawsuits in future oil spills (the only way such an acquisition would be anything more than for show), they'd turn it into a depressing work environment kicking out all the current employees.
Anyway, I'm guessing the scale of the problem is beyond putting hair on it to solve the problem. 18,000 pounds of hair which can theoretically soak up 18,000 quarts of oil in a minute, or 4,500 gallons, that isn't much compared to the 100,000 gallons leaking out per day.
Just what we need, a government takeover of another entire industry.
What's up with people saying this? Look around, especially to wall street and the gulf of mexico. I see industry messing up on the exact same scale or bigger than the government messes up.
I'm not saying "Some companies have messed up so lets give it all over to the government," I'm just saying "Government takes over an industry" isn't as scary to me as it once was.
The idea that everyone needs internet is mistaken.
I think the hypocrisy here would be a little less obvious were you not making that argument on the internet.
The original article was from Fox News - I'm just amazed they realised it was a damn, and not a giant vacuum cleaner given the quality of their fact checking.
Coming up next, are Saddam's weapons of mass destruction hidden in the beaver sadDAM?!?
Experts say no, we say maybe.
You're probably making a stupid joke, AC, but just for anyone who has forgotten, we've been officially "at war" for over 30 years.
Or just produce people with the CCR5-32 gene variant.
Didn't we find out that would work through a screening process in humans pretty similar to what jameskojiro suggested? In other words, do we know that people with the CCR5-32 gene variant are immune because out of the millions of people with HIV, there are a few people we've found are immune and those people have that gene variant?
Unfortunately I don't really have the expertise to do ANYTHING related to it, and I'm not sure many do.
Judging from TFA, if you're posting here you probably have at least most of the expertise to do it, quoting:
Models can be trained using the records of 1,000 patients. To predict an improvement in a patient's viral load, competitors will be provided with data on the nucleotide sequences of their Reverse Transcriptase (RT) their Protease (PR) and their viral load and CD4 count at the beginning of therapy. There is a brief discussion of the science of these variables in the Background section, but no knowledge of biology is necessary to succeed in this competition. Competitors' predictions will be tested on a dataset containing 692 patients.
Sounds like they give you the data and tell you what you're looking for, and then you tell them when you've found them.
I'm not sure you can call it crowdsourcing when the number of people who can get involved are so small. Maybe a contest or an open research project or something.
That may be why they don't, but "biolgeek" does. The page specifically calls it a "competition" and "contest." No mention of crowdsourcing, which doesn't mean a lot to most people.
Hey careful man. Knocking terrible game developers and the terrible games they make apperantly qualifies as flamebait.
Why exactly is it that the corporate apologists *always* fall back on either a strawman or a false dichotomy?
Probably because of their amateur status. I get the sense that Shakrai isn't actually on any corporate payroll. Were he given a paycheck to do this full time, I'm sure he'd develop other techniques.
Some people can beat it off to grandmothers dance rehearsals and girls in tight jeans on the street.
That's... specific... Have much experience in this area?
Getting ideas is the easy part.
Yeah, but often the "idea" is really just "Hey, you know that successful game by someone else? Let's make that!"
Or sometimes it's
"Hey, you know which world war is my favorite? That's right, number two, how did you know?!? We gotta make a game about it!"
And that's not to discount the all-too-common "idea" of
"That game that we made, the one that made actual money? Let's make a sequel! What's that? The main character died? And so did everyone else? Everybody in the whole world?... I smell PREQUELSEQUEL!!!
Oh yeah, and then the
"I just realized that if you put an old CD... say 'Ace of Base'... into a white jewel case and label it 'The Ace of Base wii game', someone will actually buy it and you will make money!"
There are so many games out there that suck because they were made off of brain dead concepts, it's very tempting to assume that the one thing the videogame industry lacks is someone with ideas.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to try to download the "Aliens invade the earth but a strong silent type with a gun saves the day #495" beta.
And nobody will do anything about anything because apathy rules.
And also... really, what can you do? Bike everywhere while praying the coal industry will actually develop real-no-foolin'-seriously-this-time-it's-not-just-a-marketing-scam clean coal?
there are plenty of consumers who need only the carrot (the prospect that their payment will be rewarded by production of future works) to pay fairly. Unfortunately most established industries are managed by people who like you who continue to deny what's actually happening with the belief that their philosophy will prove true in the end, and therefore always fall back to the stick method of threatening, DRM-encumbering, and generally treating their (potential) customers like criminals.
To their credit, I, a potential customer, am a criminal (though less in terms of pirating and more in terms of public urination) and I hate carrots.
Because it's cool to hate Apple, or at least 'typical' Apple customers
There's also a bit of hate on opera. While there's not as much compared to apple, when you factor in market shares, they're probably a lot closer.
To make a car analogy, you don't see much hate on the Malaysian Proton Wira in the states, but compared with how many there are driving around, there's probably a good amount of hate compared to a Ford Taurus.
It's an inappropriate picture, being looked at on a taxpayer's purchased computer, through taxpayer provided Internet connectivity, by a taxpayer funded lawmaker, and the floor of the State Senate. Call me a prude, but I don't appreciate this asshole using my tax dollars to ogle naked chicks at my office
Even if we accept that he wasn't actually doing his "job" (aka waiting while his peers pointlessly got up on a soapbox lecturing them all when everyone knew how everyone was going to vote the week before, and then voting how he said he was going to vote) then that wasted, what, $5 taxpayer money total?
If this guy hasn't wasted more than $5 taxpayer money an hour in his time in office, then he's probably still doing better than the average politician. That he wasn't using his time to draft up a subsidy to the sugar industry or some other pork project along those lines to me means he's probably doing a better job than most of his peers.
Speaking of Fark, I think this "News story" is somewhat beneath the standards of Fark.
A politician otes to invade our personal privacy? Zzzzz. A politician sides with corporate interests against the public at large? Zzzz. A politician makes a stupid incorrect statement about sciences, history, geography, or technology? Sometimes interesting. A politician is caught with his pants down in some way? ZOMG NEWS!
Leave that line of thinking with cable news and tabloids.
We haven't had effective government regulation of anything since Ronald Reagan.
[can't resist]
The fact that we had it before a republican president to me indicates that it works in principle, we just need to figure out how the republican broke it.
[/can't resist]
Sorry for that. In seriousness, I'm not going to argue in general that government regulation is good, since obviously that's not true. In this area though, I think there are plenty of obvious harms and bad scenarios where regulation -would- be a good thing and in fact essential. Even a minimalist regulatory authority against the evil telecoms is better than nothing. Sure, we won't get an FCC or any government agency that actually effectively promotes competition in this area, but a "No, you can't block access to all news sites but 'comcastnews.com'" is more than we'd get without any government oversight.
So if they're right, the federal govt. can basically be badgered into not doing it's job? Awesome.
Wow, where have you been living?
"the current regulatory framework would lead to constant legal challenges to the FCC's authority every time it attempted to pursue a broadband policy."
And... so?
Speaking as an extremely annoyed liberal, the point would be obvious if you were an elected democrat. It's a fight...WE SURRENDER OH GOOD GOD WE SURRENDER DON'T HURT MEEEEE!!!!!!!!
Possibly drunk on the inside, as well. :P
It's in St. Louis, that goes without saying.
Someone has to cook the french fries, after all.
In this case, given that tried to blackmail them after not being hired, yes. In general though, I'd say past criminal record is a terrible method of deciding who cooks the fries and who gets to move ahead. Some crimes anyway. Some corporate fraud, sure, force them to live under a bridge.