however, that youtube video of people shouting out spoilers to a harry potter book at people waiting in line outside a bookstore was pretty damn funny. i suppose that it would be really upsetting if it happened to you, though.
Something like that did happen to me with those books, only it was a guy I knew, and yes, I did punch him in the testicles the next time I saw him.
My biggest issue with the global warming debate, is that it's not a debate. It's religion... In all other scientific theories, if a prediction is proven wrong it requires updating or invalidating the theory. When it comes to global warming it is never anything but "the denialists reading it wrong".
You could easily say the same thing about creationism. Neither one has been proven wrong. There are plenty of examples in evolutionary science that seem to be contradictions when the context is ignored or one doesn't bother reading the evidence. If you don't go heavily into the literature on either side or both sides, it can easily seem like a "yes it is! No it isn't!" argument in which either side has no proof, but that's not the case.
With the global warming controversy, the arguments on EITHER side are complex and well reasoned in some cases. Unfortunately, the louder voices are also the ones that tend to oversimplify, the greenpeace VS big oil. That argument IS more like religion, and some scientists engage in that too. Scientists are people after all. Both sides do have some loud irrational proponents, but it's wrong to conclude that neither side is rational at all, they both are.
This is not funny. There are real crackpot scientists out there trying to do this.
See, that to me IS funny. The thought of failed evil scientists trying to seed the next ice age, only to be beaten by Greenhouse Gas Man... I'm going to make that into a movie.
Note that neither the article nor the summary referred to a police state in the first place. This was only mentioned by the first post - your interest in a topic is reduced just by a random person commenting on Slashdot?
Yes. That's still a person, who was expressing their honest opinion. Are you implying I shouldn't be at all influenced by other people's opinions? Good luck with that. I know it's not the best reaction, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't decrease my interest in this. Other people are undoubtedly the same way although they might not be honest about it.
SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument? I see it a lot on Slashdot, and everywhere else I go!
It goes like this: "X is bad." "Y is worse than X, X isn't bad at all."
His argument was actually "It's not a police state, calling it that weakens the criticism." Which I think is valid. Saying "The government keeps a log of when I leave the country... POLICE STATE BIG BROTHER!!!" is somewhat overstating it. I know I roll my eyes when I hear that term, because it gets thrown around so often. It immediately reduced my interest in this issue.
It seems to just be cynicism trying to pass itself off as wisdom. "I knew this would happen, after all, we do live in a police state." It just sounds like arrogance to me. I'm not impressed, we don't live in a police state, quit being overly dramatic. There is work to be done, but not on/.
And time passed validates spoiling something for somebody.. how?
Not if you specifically ruin it for someone, but there is a statute of limitations there where you don't have to be as careful.
The week after 6th sense came out, only a complete asshole would have been blabbing about it on a busy street corner, and punching him in the testicles would be entirely justified. Talking about it now on a street corner could be annoying depending on how loud you were, but you don't have to be careful about it in general.
If though you know someone is just about to watch it, and you told them, it would once again be an asshole thing to do and you should get punched in the testicles.
The difference is likelyhood of spoiling it for someone. Shortly after a story is released, the chances are pretty good that you'd be spoiling it someone. If you know you're spoiling it for someone, there is no statute of limitations.
1. If it's possible to see it coming, then it's possible to see it coming. You could have started using the little grey cells (to paraphrase Hercules Poirot) for any other reason, or for just happening to be the kind of guy who thinks ahead.
2. Did you really need that nudge? I mean, _the_ major spoiler of the century is everyone adhering to the same script called the Monomyth, a.k.a., the Hero's Journey.
What he was specifically talking about were surprises you would NOT see coming. He provided specific examples which were not obvious. You only would have seen the twists coming in fight club, 6th sense, and FEAR if you had already been warned about them or read the book. There's no reason to expect them otherwise.
Obviously predictable plots are by definition going to be predictable and are not spoilable.
i just served jury duty where the defendant was accused of using tracking devices and various technologies to be sure his daughter wouldn't talk about how she was being used as his sex slave.
Obviously the tracking devices themselves were not the real problem there. Almost anything can be misused.
Not to mention that any group called "Privacy International" might have a somewhat unrealistic view of how much of a threat this is.
Which is not to say they're wrong, just that often times interest groups like this overzealously reject things out of hand that they percieve to be a threat.
And that means what? I think relatively few people value economic systems more than they value economic sucess. If strict adherence to free market is going to get us into a depression (which it won't, but bear with me) then to hell with free markets comrade. The only reason to be in favor of free markets is because you think it will make more money for everyone/you. And of course you wouldn't be such a capitalist if it was your job on the line.
In short, the Phantom OS sounds more like the Phantom game console than anything I'd want to run on my computer.
I was also wondering about the choice of names there. I did some research and found that actually they made the right choice given the options. Some of the other names they were considering:
- Edsel OS - New Coke OS - Delorean OS - Betamax OS - Cold fusion OS - Cure for the common cold OS - Esperanto OS - Zune OS - This OS will totally break your computer OS - Enron OS - weloveventurecapital OS - Dreamcast OS - Y2K bug OS - Completehoax OS - Flyingcar OS - Windows Vista OS
You read/. but don't care about new hardware until its something you can buy for cheap? Okay... There are some hobbies you might consider, like stamp collecting, to more effectively use your time.
Anyone know or have a figure on how much a city makes in red lights and how much these camera systems cost? Even without factoring in the fines that result or the increased traffic accidents this causes, is it profitable, or is this an example of bureacracy at it's finest?
In other words, is this actually a way of getting more money, or is this that the performance bonuses of department A are based entirely off of how much revenue they bring in from tickets without subtracting how much they spent. It just kind of sounds like someone was told their job was to fine as many people they could for running red lights, don't care how you do it, and they realized this was easier than actually making enforcement more efficient.
I think there might be a little bit of guilt by association there, finland is in europe, out of ignorance they lump europe with US actions (which is why they're mad, not because "we are free"), and therefore Finland has, in their eyes, been blamable for every percieved insult against islam.
Not unlike the dumb hicks here who lump all of Islam together as responsible for 9/11.
You're right though, I don't think the extremists will forgive us, they're still upset over petty squabbles from 1000 years ago.
Of course that goes both ways. If we try to make amends, muslim extremists are mad. If we take a hardline approach, muslim extremists are mad. But if we don't use diplomacy and just resort to force, Islam is going to get madder at us. Islam is also spreading rapidly, being bullheaded while that is going on is just going to increase the number of muslims angry at the west. And of course, abandoning diplomacy in favor of attacking based on our own righteousness has failed miserably. We seem to be doing not too shabby with one of the two countries we took over and tried to rebuild from the ground up, but we can't afford to do it to every fundamentalist islamic country in the world. Dealing with them is our only choice.
Diplomacy is ineffective, but less so than any of the realistic alternatives.
A small trial in China showed a statistically and clinically significant difference in 30 day survival with ELAD.
So more people with this ELAD liver replacement were alive at 30 days than a control group, who presumably had their livers removed and replaced with nothing...
I'm really in the dark as to the basics of quantum dots, and basic physics if I'm being honest, so I have some questions that might very well be pretty far off the wall. My excuse is I'm a biologist, not a physicist.
Can anyone tell me if these new smaller quantum dots would be useful as fluorophores? I've mostly heard about qdots in the context of using them as dyes for microscopy, until I started reading the article and the wiki page on quantum dots, I didn't even know the goal was for computing purposes.
Anyway, I see no mention of fluorescence in the article (and couldn't understand much of the paper). I'm not sure if that's because it's not the interest of the paper, hasn't been tested, or its the whole point of the dots and asking if they emit fluorescence is like asking if a new car can drive. The wiki page on quantum dots tells me that larger dots in colloidal suspension have a "redder" lower energy emmision, smaller dots having a "bluer" higher energy emission, so maybe the emmission for these super small dots is "off the scale" and couldn't be used for microscopy?
I'm also wondering about the toxicity for in vivo use. One limitation I've heard about using them in living cells is they may kill the cell, releasing toxic cadmium ions in the presence of UV light (according again to wiki page on quantum dots). Any guesses from people who have a better grip on this as to whether this will do that as well?
Anyway, the old way of using fluorescent proteins works for now, but my understanding is that they are not as bright, bleach much faster, and only come in a few colors. I've never worked with qdots, but it seems like in a few years they'll replace GFP and RFP in a lot of situations, just trying to stay somewhat ahead of the curve.
Slashdot Mirror
Those especially prone to conspiracy theories...
should have more important conspiracies to be theorizing than RIAA teaming up with google.
however, that youtube video of people shouting out spoilers to a harry potter book at people waiting in line outside a bookstore was pretty damn funny. i suppose that it would be really upsetting if it happened to you, though.
Something like that did happen to me with those books, only it was a guy I knew, and yes, I did punch him in the testicles the next time I saw him.
My biggest issue with the global warming debate, is that it's not a debate. It's religion... In all other scientific theories, if a prediction is proven wrong it requires updating or invalidating the theory. When it comes to global warming it is never anything but "the denialists reading it wrong".
You could easily say the same thing about creationism. Neither one has been proven wrong. There are plenty of examples in evolutionary science that seem to be contradictions when the context is ignored or one doesn't bother reading the evidence. If you don't go heavily into the literature on either side or both sides, it can easily seem like a "yes it is! No it isn't!" argument in which either side has no proof, but that's not the case.
With the global warming controversy, the arguments on EITHER side are complex and well reasoned in some cases. Unfortunately, the louder voices are also the ones that tend to oversimplify, the greenpeace VS big oil. That argument IS more like religion, and some scientists engage in that too. Scientists are people after all. Both sides do have some loud irrational proponents, but it's wrong to conclude that neither side is rational at all, they both are.
This is not funny.
There are real crackpot scientists out there trying to do this.
See, that to me IS funny. The thought of failed evil scientists trying to seed the next ice age, only to be beaten by Greenhouse Gas Man... I'm going to make that into a movie.
Note that neither the article nor the summary referred to a police state in the first place. This was only mentioned by the first post - your interest in a topic is reduced just by a random person commenting on Slashdot?
Yes. That's still a person, who was expressing their honest opinion. Are you implying I shouldn't be at all influenced by other people's opinions? Good luck with that. I know it's not the best reaction, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't decrease my interest in this. Other people are undoubtedly the same way although they might not be honest about it.
SuperKendall, why do you buy into this argument? I see it a lot on Slashdot, and everywhere else I go!
It goes like this:
"X is bad."
"Y is worse than X, X isn't bad at all."
His argument was actually "It's not a police state, calling it that weakens the criticism." Which I think is valid. Saying "The government keeps a log of when I leave the country... POLICE STATE BIG BROTHER!!!" is somewhat overstating it. I know I roll my eyes when I hear that term, because it gets thrown around so often. It immediately reduced my interest in this issue.
It seems to just be cynicism trying to pass itself off as wisdom. "I knew this would happen, after all, we do live in a police state." It just sounds like arrogance to me. I'm not impressed, we don't live in a police state, quit being overly dramatic. There is work to be done, but not on /.
And time passed validates spoiling something for somebody.. how?
Not if you specifically ruin it for someone, but there is a statute of limitations there where you don't have to be as careful.
The week after 6th sense came out, only a complete asshole would have been blabbing about it on a busy street corner, and punching him in the testicles would be entirely justified. Talking about it now on a street corner could be annoying depending on how loud you were, but you don't have to be careful about it in general.
If though you know someone is just about to watch it, and you told them, it would once again be an asshole thing to do and you should get punched in the testicles.
The difference is likelyhood of spoiling it for someone. Shortly after a story is released, the chances are pretty good that you'd be spoiling it someone. If you know you're spoiling it for someone, there is no statute of limitations.
As does Jesus... coincidence? I think not.
1. If it's possible to see it coming, then it's possible to see it coming. You could have started using the little grey cells (to paraphrase Hercules Poirot) for any other reason, or for just happening to be the kind of guy who thinks ahead.
2. Did you really need that nudge? I mean, _the_ major spoiler of the century is everyone adhering to the same script called the Monomyth, a.k.a., the Hero's Journey.
What he was specifically talking about were surprises you would NOT see coming. He provided specific examples which were not obvious. You only would have seen the twists coming in fight club, 6th sense, and FEAR if you had already been warned about them or read the book. There's no reason to expect them otherwise.
Obviously predictable plots are by definition going to be predictable and are not spoilable.
That shows that the government can track individuals, not that they do so for people they don't suspect of terrorism or crimes.
If the government agencies and large corporations already knew everything that Google Latitude reveals, and they do
[citation needed]
i just served jury duty where the defendant was accused of using tracking devices and various technologies to be sure his daughter wouldn't talk about how she was being used as his sex slave.
Obviously the tracking devices themselves were not the real problem there. Almost anything can be misused.
Not to mention that any group called "Privacy International" might have a somewhat unrealistic view of how much of a threat this is.
Which is not to say they're wrong, just that often times interest groups like this overzealously reject things out of hand that they percieve to be a threat.
This is the FREE MARKET doing what it does best.
And that means what? I think relatively few people value economic systems more than they value economic sucess. If strict adherence to free market is going to get us into a depression (which it won't, but bear with me) then to hell with free markets comrade. The only reason to be in favor of free markets is because you think it will make more money for everyone/you. And of course you wouldn't be such a capitalist if it was your job on the line.
And the Xbox3
They meant the XBOX 129600. The correct formula for Xbox naming is XBOX 360^(N-1) where N is the generation number.
In short, the Phantom OS sounds more like the Phantom game console than anything I'd want to run on my computer.
I was also wondering about the choice of names there. I did some research and found that actually they made the right choice given the options. Some of the other names they were considering:
- Edsel OS
- New Coke OS
- Delorean OS
- Betamax OS
- Cold fusion OS
- Cure for the common cold OS
- Esperanto OS
- Zune OS
- This OS will totally break your computer OS
- Enron OS
- weloveventurecapital OS
- Dreamcast OS
- Y2K bug OS
- Completehoax OS
- Flyingcar OS
- Windows Vista OS
You read /. but don't care about new hardware until its something you can buy for cheap? Okay... There are some hobbies you might consider, like stamp collecting, to more effectively use your time.
Anyone know or have a figure on how much a city makes in red lights and how much these camera systems cost? Even without factoring in the fines that result or the increased traffic accidents this causes, is it profitable, or is this an example of bureacracy at it's finest?
In other words, is this actually a way of getting more money, or is this that the performance bonuses of department A are based entirely off of how much revenue they bring in from tickets without subtracting how much they spent. It just kind of sounds like someone was told their job was to fine as many people they could for running red lights, don't care how you do it, and they realized this was easier than actually making enforcement more efficient.
Also, why would you piss off your favorite customer who buys all of your cheap crap?
Not to mention that if China wanted to mess with us, all they'd have to do is say "Hey, about that money we gave your government..."
I think there might be a little bit of guilt by association there, finland is in europe, out of ignorance they lump europe with US actions (which is why they're mad, not because "we are free"), and therefore Finland has, in their eyes, been blamable for every percieved insult against islam.
Not unlike the dumb hicks here who lump all of Islam together as responsible for 9/11.
You're right though, I don't think the extremists will forgive us, they're still upset over petty squabbles from 1000 years ago.
Of course that goes both ways. If we try to make amends, muslim extremists are mad. If we take a hardline approach, muslim extremists are mad. But if we don't use diplomacy and just resort to force, Islam is going to get madder at us. Islam is also spreading rapidly, being bullheaded while that is going on is just going to increase the number of muslims angry at the west. And of course, abandoning diplomacy in favor of attacking based on our own righteousness has failed miserably. We seem to be doing not too shabby with one of the two countries we took over and tried to rebuild from the ground up, but we can't afford to do it to every fundamentalist islamic country in the world. Dealing with them is our only choice.
Diplomacy is ineffective, but less so than any of the realistic alternatives.
The notion that everyone can be reasoned with isn't diplomacy, it's stupidity. Ask a rape victim how saying no to her attacker went over.
Saying no to rape is not at all similar to diplomacy.
The analogous situation would be if someone is attacking you, you pull a gun on them and tell them to get the hell away from you.
That gun does not need to be in space. See, ridiculous analogies can go both ways!
A small trial in China showed a statistically and clinically significant difference in 30 day survival with ELAD.
So more people with this ELAD liver replacement were alive at 30 days than a control group, who presumably had their livers removed and replaced with nothing...
I'm really in the dark as to the basics of quantum dots, and basic physics if I'm being honest, so I have some questions that might very well be pretty far off the wall. My excuse is I'm a biologist, not a physicist.
Can anyone tell me if these new smaller quantum dots would be useful as fluorophores? I've mostly heard about qdots in the context of using them as dyes for microscopy, until I started reading the article and the wiki page on quantum dots, I didn't even know the goal was for computing purposes.
Anyway, I see no mention of fluorescence in the article (and couldn't understand much of the paper). I'm not sure if that's because it's not the interest of the paper, hasn't been tested, or its the whole point of the dots and asking if they emit fluorescence is like asking if a new car can drive. The wiki page on quantum dots tells me that larger dots in colloidal suspension have a "redder" lower energy emmision, smaller dots having a "bluer" higher energy emission, so maybe the emmission for these super small dots is "off the scale" and couldn't be used for microscopy?
I'm also wondering about the toxicity for in vivo use. One limitation I've heard about using them in living cells is they may kill the cell, releasing toxic cadmium ions in the presence of UV light (according again to wiki page on quantum dots). Any guesses from people who have a better grip on this as to whether this will do that as well?
Anyway, the old way of using fluorescent proteins works for now, but my understanding is that they are not as bright, bleach much faster, and only come in a few colors. I've never worked with qdots, but it seems like in a few years they'll replace GFP and RFP in a lot of situations, just trying to stay somewhat ahead of the curve.