Well, no. That *is* code you want to either get rid of or *THOROUGHLY* document. But until you understand it you'd better not touch it in any non-reversible manner, and test each change so that reversing remains trivial.
Well, I *did* understand Avogadro's number that way, but that was several decades ago, and I'd need to do it again to again properly understand it. And for most of science there's no college lab. Nutrition experiments run for months to years, as just one example. So I've never done a controlled experiment, that not being my specialty.
Yes. I'm not sure that Apple didn't come out losing on this deal. But they definitely imposed contract terms that made the accomplishment impossible...and if an earlier story I read was correct some of those terms were done via an amendment made after the contract was signed.
This doesn't prove that Apple was malicious rather than incompetent, and the available evidence seems to show that the affair cost them considerably...so I lean towards incompetent rather than malicious. IIUC GT was not in a position were it could refuse to accept the impossible terms.
The problem isn't the science, it's the engineering, and I doubt that anybody currently has the engineering. Still, there are lots of countries that are fairly close, and, as mentioned, possibly a couple of private companies.
They are scientists in the large, but very few of them write papers for journals. So they aren't scientists in the narrow sense. And they aren't experimental scientists, because they don't do controlled studies. They fall at the interface between experimental and observational. Were they to write papers (as sometimes happens) the papers could well be useful to experimental scientists who would validate how widely the reported effect is spread over the population, what conditions were needed for repetition, etc.
You should have the right to choose whether to trust them or not. And the schools should have the right to refuse to accept any unvaccinated children for compromising herd immunity.
As for "mind altering drugs", I've never thought that was generally for the benefit of the children, though occasionally it seems to work that way, but rather for the benefit of the rest of the class. And schools should be able to refuse excessively disruptive children. So again it should be your choice.
You are correct that: (a->b) and (b->c) DOES NOT LOGICALLY IMPLY (!a->!c)
But if you knew (a->b) and (b->c) and you had to chose between: (!a->!c) and !(!a->!c) which way would you bet? The test to choose between the alternatives was eventually done, but it took awhile, and then people had to be convinced and....
The honest thing to do would be to say at the beginning, "Well, this is just a guess, but...", and I'd bet somewhere there's a paper that did so as the underlying basis of policy. But can you imagine a government policy saying "Well, it looks like too much sugar might be bad for you, but there are a couple of other more complicated possibilities that we should check on before we make a real recommendation."?
FWIW, it seems pretty clear that the cholesterol depositon on arterial wall is initially a useful reaction to stress. But the presence of some acts as a facilitator of the deposition of more, and if the stress doesn't go away fairly quickly it becomes slightly damaging. If the stress continues for a very long period of time it can become life threatening. (Naturally this is an oversimplified picture, leaving out, e.g., any reference to serum levels, neural mylenation, etc.)
FWIW, what *I* think of golden rice is that it's patented, with a less restrictive than usual patent holder. Vitamin A is *probably* good to include in rice, but unless it's carotene then you need to be careful not to overdose on it. (I haven't checked in detail because I don't have access to it, and the target population isn't in danger of a vitamin A overdose.)
But I distrust all patented basic foods, because they are enablers of monopolies. And if other people want to be irrationally frightened of them that's fine with me. (Also, I distrust food safety tests conducted by those who have a financial stake in the product. But that's a relatively minor consideration.)
FWIW, at least locally Chiropracter is a licensed specialty. I have also had back problems successfully treated by a Chiropracter. (More recently I had the same problem successfully treated by a Physical Therapist. I think the reason his treatment worked was the inclusion of heat and massage, I don't know why the Chiropracter was able to ameliorate it.)
I believe that Chiropracters can treat many conditions successfully. Also that their theories about what they are doing are incredibly silly. And many of them don't know their limits. But I consider it slander to group them with Homeopaths, who can only affect psychomatic cures.
Anecdote isn't data, but after I lost weight on a "modified" Atkins diet, my triglyceride levels which has always previously been lower than normal became high enough to cause concern.
So...that's not a comment about weight, but rather about health. Still, weight is often used as a stand-in for health, and sometimes it shouldn't be. IMHO Atkins is great for losing weight, but not for improving health.
There are many inputs. Some of them *are* concerned with what is a healthy diet...and even amoung them there is considerable disagreement. But any pronouncement from a politically established agency should be expected to have multiple (often contradictory) political considerations embedded in it.
You are saying that you became a specialist in every field of science? When the narrow experts can't even keep up with their sub-specialty? Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.
If you intended to be saying something else, perhaps you could be more explicit, but as stated (in context) your post invites derision. I can't even keep up with (and evaluate) all the newest theories and practices in programming...pretty much only the ones I actually get around to using.
Actually, cavemen did lead relatively long an healthy lives, if they didn't encounter a "major" accident. (Major is relative to their ability to treat, and their tribe's willingness to support.) Life spans and health decreased markedly with "the agricultural revolution"...but population sizes increased...and communicable diseases became more of a problem.
Well, we don't live in small isolated groups. So communicable diseases are a problem. We have medical advantages so "major" accidents need to be much more major to be a problem. But as for diet... cavemen in most areas they chose to live had a diet more varied than that of our grandparents, and certainly less plagued with health hazards than we do. They didn't engage in monoculture, hunting whatever was around, and harvesting whatever was nearby. Their populations would often grow to the bounds of their food supply, they grew as tall as we do (or nearly), their bones were healthier, etc.
Unfortunately, to actually adopt a "caveman diet" in these days you'd need to be a multi-millionaire. And even then a lot of what they ate is just extinct. (Also there are details that we don't know.) What gets called "the caveman diet" these days is a gross oversimplification. Even then you would probably need to include their exercise regimine if you want the same results.
The reason you can't find a list of foods and the bacteria they promote is that it isn't that simple. Research is on-going, and current popularizations are based around partial information. This doesn't mean it isn't known to be important, just that they don't understand the variables and all the effects. Additionally, with bacteria if they aren't present they don't magically appear just because you eat the proper things, you also need to ensure that a founder population is already present.
There have been a few experiments involving fecal transplants that have been quite promissing, but the number of humans involved is measured in the single digits. And the FDA is grossed out by the idea, so they are putting up barriers. (It's possible that this is encouraged by drug companies that want to promote standardized bacterial cultures...an idea that actually has some merits, but also the potential for profits.)
FWIW, apple juice is one of the favoite ways of adding surgar without saying so to other products, so in that particular case there's probably no advantage to adding sugar.
OTOH, there are lots of juices that are, indeed, just juices. They tend to come in liter or quart sizes, though, not individual portions. And they aren't the cheapest. (They also aren't the most expensive.)
My favorite rephrasing is: "organic crystalized cane juice"... true, but quite intentionally deceptive. (Actually, I have my doubts about that "organic" claim except in the sense that is is built around carbon atoms.)
While I concede the possibility, I won't believe it without evidence from a source that I trust. It seems too unlikely, and I find it more likely that the person I don't personally know and trust has misunderstood (possibly intentionally) the situation.
OTOH, radical changes can happen with unexpected speed, so it *is* possible. (I find it expecially questionable however that satanic, i.e. religious, symbols are allowed and christian ones aren't...but possibly policy has only been generated about christian religious symbols.)
Some libraries have only been written for Python2. For me that means I use a different library, but I can understand not wanting to change something that's currently working.
Well, if it's on GitHub they won't be the only people who benefit. You might as well argue against building hammers because the army uses some. (OK, that's not *quite* fair. It is a specialized tool. But not *that* specialized.)
FWIW, Python *does* compile the code it executes, and saves it as *.pyc files. True, it's only compiled for the Python virtual machine, but it's still compiled...and difficult to read.
I think what you are proposing is "long term occupation", and I agree that *can* be made to work. It does, however, have significant costs, and opportunities for disaster. The US occupation of Japan, and the Allies occupation of Germany were examples of successes, but it's not clear that this either could have been done in Iraq, or that there wouldn't have been intolerable costs. And there clearly wasn't the long term political will to accomplish it.
So what you're saying is that there is old hardware that will only work if you make your system insecure. OK.
FWIW, I don't consider any system that allows remote sessions to be secure. Period. So you need to isolate such systems. (This isn't an argument that you shouldn't run such systems. Just that you should take precautions.)
As an aside, I think that allowing compressed files to be expanded with the execute bit set is also a security hazard...just one that's probably worth the cost. In most circumstances. (And hazard isn't the same as hole. Not quite.)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. That *is* code you want to either get rid of or *THOROUGHLY* document. But until you understand it you'd better not touch it in any non-reversible manner, and test each change so that reversing remains trivial.
Well, I *did* understand Avogadro's number that way, but that was several decades ago, and I'd need to do it again to again properly understand it. And for most of science there's no college lab. Nutrition experiments run for months to years, as just one example. So I've never done a controlled experiment, that not being my specialty.
Yes. I'm not sure that Apple didn't come out losing on this deal. But they definitely imposed contract terms that made the accomplishment impossible...and if an earlier story I read was correct some of those terms were done via an amendment made after the contract was signed.
This doesn't prove that Apple was malicious rather than incompetent, and the available evidence seems to show that the affair cost them considerably...so I lean towards incompetent rather than malicious. IIUC GT was not in a position were it could refuse to accept the impossible terms.
The problem isn't the science, it's the engineering, and I doubt that anybody currently has the engineering. Still, there are lots of countries that are fairly close, and, as mentioned, possibly a couple of private companies.
They are scientists in the large, but very few of them write papers for journals. So they aren't scientists in the narrow sense. And they aren't experimental scientists, because they don't do controlled studies. They fall at the interface between experimental and observational. Were they to write papers (as sometimes happens) the papers could well be useful to experimental scientists who would validate how widely the reported effect is spread over the population, what conditions were needed for repetition, etc.
You should have the right to choose whether to trust them or not. And the schools should have the right to refuse to accept any unvaccinated children for compromising herd immunity.
As for "mind altering drugs", I've never thought that was generally for the benefit of the children, though occasionally it seems to work that way, but rather for the benefit of the rest of the class. And schools should be able to refuse excessively disruptive children. So again it should be your choice.
You are correct that:
(a->b) and (b->c) DOES NOT LOGICALLY IMPLY (!a->!c)
But if you knew (a->b) and (b->c) and you had to chose between:
(!a->!c) and
!(!a->!c)
which way would you bet? The test to choose between the alternatives was eventually done, but it took awhile, and then people had to be convinced and....
The honest thing to do would be to say at the beginning, "Well, this is just a guess, but...", and I'd bet somewhere there's a paper that did so as the underlying basis of policy. But can you imagine a government policy saying "Well, it looks like too much sugar might be bad for you, but there are a couple of other more complicated possibilities that we should check on before we make a real recommendation."?
FWIW, it seems pretty clear that the cholesterol depositon on arterial wall is initially a useful reaction to stress. But the presence of some acts as a facilitator of the deposition of more, and if the stress doesn't go away fairly quickly it becomes slightly damaging. If the stress continues for a very long period of time it can become life threatening. (Naturally this is an oversimplified picture, leaving out, e.g., any reference to serum levels, neural mylenation, etc.)
FWIW, what *I* think of golden rice is that it's patented, with a less restrictive than usual patent holder. Vitamin A is *probably* good to include in rice, but unless it's carotene then you need to be careful not to overdose on it. (I haven't checked in detail because I don't have access to it, and the target population isn't in danger of a vitamin A overdose.)
But I distrust all patented basic foods, because they are enablers of monopolies. And if other people want to be irrationally frightened of them that's fine with me. (Also, I distrust food safety tests conducted by those who have a financial stake in the product. But that's a relatively minor consideration.)
FWIW, at least locally Chiropracter is a licensed specialty. I have also had back problems successfully treated by a Chiropracter. (More recently I had the same problem successfully treated by a Physical Therapist. I think the reason his treatment worked was the inclusion of heat and massage, I don't know why the Chiropracter was able to ameliorate it.)
I believe that Chiropracters can treat many conditions successfully. Also that their theories about what they are doing are incredibly silly. And many of them don't know their limits. But I consider it slander to group them with Homeopaths, who can only affect psychomatic cures.
Anecdote isn't data, but after I lost weight on a "modified" Atkins diet, my triglyceride levels which has always previously been lower than normal became high enough to cause concern.
So...that's not a comment about weight, but rather about health. Still, weight is often used as a stand-in for health, and sometimes it shouldn't be. IMHO Atkins is great for losing weight, but not for improving health.
There are many inputs. Some of them *are* concerned with what is a healthy diet...and even amoung them there is considerable disagreement. But any pronouncement from a politically established agency should be expected to have multiple (often contradictory) political considerations embedded in it.
And it's still better than no guidance.
You are saying that you became a specialist in every field of science? When the narrow experts can't even keep up with their sub-specialty? Pardon me for being a bit skeptical.
If you intended to be saying something else, perhaps you could be more explicit, but as stated (in context) your post invites derision. I can't even keep up with (and evaluate) all the newest theories and practices in programming...pretty much only the ones I actually get around to using.
Actually, cavemen did lead relatively long an healthy lives, if they didn't encounter a "major" accident. (Major is relative to their ability to treat, and their tribe's willingness to support.) Life spans and health decreased markedly with "the agricultural revolution"...but population sizes increased...and communicable diseases became more of a problem.
Well, we don't live in small isolated groups. So communicable diseases are a problem. We have medical advantages so "major" accidents need to be much more major to be a problem. But as for diet... cavemen in most areas they chose to live had a diet more varied than that of our grandparents, and certainly less plagued with health hazards than we do. They didn't engage in monoculture, hunting whatever was around, and harvesting whatever was nearby. Their populations would often grow to the bounds of their food supply, they grew as tall as we do (or nearly), their bones were healthier, etc.
Unfortunately, to actually adopt a "caveman diet" in these days you'd need to be a multi-millionaire. And even then a lot of what they ate is just extinct. (Also there are details that we don't know.) What gets called "the caveman diet" these days is a gross oversimplification. Even then you would probably need to include their exercise regimine if you want the same results.
The reason you can't find a list of foods and the bacteria they promote is that it isn't that simple. Research is on-going, and current popularizations are based around partial information. This doesn't mean it isn't known to be important, just that they don't understand the variables and all the effects. Additionally, with bacteria if they aren't present they don't magically appear just because you eat the proper things, you also need to ensure that a founder population is already present.
There have been a few experiments involving fecal transplants that have been quite promissing, but the number of humans involved is measured in the single digits. And the FDA is grossed out by the idea, so they are putting up barriers. (It's possible that this is encouraged by drug companies that want to promote standardized bacterial cultures...an idea that actually has some merits, but also the potential for profits.)
FWIW, apple juice is one of the favoite ways of adding surgar without saying so to other products, so in that particular case there's probably no advantage to adding sugar.
OTOH, there are lots of juices that are, indeed, just juices. They tend to come in liter or quart sizes, though, not individual portions. And they aren't the cheapest. (They also aren't the most expensive.)
My favorite rephrasing is: ... true, but quite intentionally deceptive. (Actually, I have my doubts about that "organic" claim except in the sense that is is built around carbon atoms.)
"organic crystalized cane juice"
Peyote is too new world. Probably mushrooms.
While I concede the possibility, I won't believe it without evidence from a source that I trust. It seems too unlikely, and I find it more likely that the person I don't personally know and trust has misunderstood (possibly intentionally) the situation.
OTOH, radical changes can happen with unexpected speed, so it *is* possible. (I find it expecially questionable however that satanic, i.e. religious, symbols are allowed and christian ones aren't...but possibly policy has only been generated about christian religious symbols.)
Some libraries have only been written for Python2. For me that means I use a different library, but I can understand not wanting to change something that's currently working.
Well, if it's on GitHub they won't be the only people who benefit. You might as well argue against building hammers because the army uses some. (OK, that's not *quite* fair. It is a specialized tool. But not *that* specialized.)
FWIW, Python *does* compile the code it executes, and saves it as *.pyc files. True, it's only compiled for the Python virtual machine, but it's still compiled...and difficult to read.
I think what you are proposing is "long term occupation", and I agree that *can* be made to work. It does, however, have significant costs, and opportunities for disaster. The US occupation of Japan, and the Allies occupation of Germany were examples of successes, but it's not clear that this either could have been done in Iraq, or that there wouldn't have been intolerable costs. And there clearly wasn't the long term political will to accomplish it.
Naive is a version of untrustworthy. Ask your Nigerian Banker.
So what you're saying is that there is old hardware that will only work if you make your system insecure. OK.
FWIW, I don't consider any system that allows remote sessions to be secure. Period. So you need to isolate such systems. (This isn't an argument that you shouldn't run such systems. Just that you should take precautions.)
As an aside, I think that allowing compressed files to be expanded with the execute bit set is also a security hazard...just one that's probably worth the cost. In most circumstances. (And hazard isn't the same as hole. Not quite.)