Nobody uses omnidirectional antennas for ham operation in 2.4Ghz. Almost all operation is with satellites or point-to-point, and 10- to 20-element yagi beams are standard equipment. It's because of simple physics and the distance involved, plus there are way more sources of noise on S-band than your little directional router. With the beam pointed straight up, they probably won't even hear your signal, nor you theirs. Funny thing about radio waves, they propagate (or not) the same in both directions. Plus, the actual power limit is 1500W, provided safety constraints are met, and 50W S-band amplifiers are pretty common--try beating that.
When has the TSA ever had to reveal or explain anything they do?
When they get a call from an angry congressperson about the treatment their relative/friend/self just received.
A private business is allowed to deny you entry to their property for no reason at all. So far, we have been operating under the assumption that the government is *not* allowed to deny you passage on a private airplane for no reason at all. Yes, they have tried, but the truth is they are not yet completely above the law.
Of course, personally, I don't feel the need to give them that opportunity. I take the train whenever I can.
They're trying to write it in a language legal folks will understand. The entire book is like a footnote in their minds, explaining the evidence of their cases but not actually part of the case.
Based on your argument, anyone who contracts HIV should be put in solitary confinement so they cannot transmit it to others, same as murderers. You can only get so far in suppressing animal instincts while ignoring the consequences of the ones that inevitably slip up. Besides, I'd much rather have a society where people go around fucking each other than beating each other to death, which is why the prisons are full of violent offenders instead of adulterers. (Though IIRC, there was an article a while back on how promiscuity vs. monogamy was actually a genetic spectrum and people naturally wind up all over this spectrum. It's not like *everyone* is programmed to be irresponsible.)
And you also ignore the fact that the site of the real HIV epidemic is Africa, where many cultures almost *expect* everyone to have multiple sexual partners. There are efforts to change the culture, but culture changes VERY slowly and in the mean time people are dying. A vaccine like this would be of immeasurable value to them.
According to that article, their costs went up a ton due to development of two new games that have yet to make them money. I have a hard time swallowing the article's claim that a 90% drop in profits isn't something to be alarmed about.
Sad but true. Short-sighted investors that are alarmed when executives put profits back into the company instead of dolling them out as dividends are what make so many CEOs drive perfectly good companies into the ground. They should all have their man-cards revoked and sent to business school.
Everything you said is true, but all those methods of shielding an enclosed space can be detected from outside the space by the resulting warp in the fields around it. The researchers in this article propose a method of layering materials so that the warping of the field is contained within the shield itself, rendering its presence undetectable. This is a significant advance over conventional shielding, but it has yet to be proven feasible.
I am sorry to hear that your sarcasm meter is broken. I would like to take this opportunity to explain that my comment was made purely as a joke, and that I am actually a strong supporter of alternative energy and efficiency. I understand the technical feats involved in this project, but I just thought it was hilarious that their "super energy efficient processor" was being powered by an incandescent light bulb. (Not that making fun of climate denialists isn't fun too, but it's not what I was thinking...)
TC
P.S., this post was written in a light-hearted manner as well. Don't take it personally.
All it takes is one false negative in a case where an oncologist could have made a positive diagnosis, and it proves relying on the computer is unsafe. Are they going to put it through 900 rigorous trials like I just described? Would you trust your wife or daughter's illness to Watson if they don't? Even if they do?
I don't want to dispute your point, but for the sake of argument, how many false negative diagnoses are made by human oncologists? I understand that a false negative is more serious than a false positive because you would always get a second opinion on a positive diagnosis but not necessarily a negative one.
I actually didn't fully appreciate that they were trying to use it specifically against cancer. I thought it would be more useful in a general practice, where a few symptoms could correspond to multiple different diseases, and the computer could help pick which one. I still don't think they're trying to replace skilled oncologists. This could definitely get hairy, but I'm still willing to give computers the benefit of the doubt and compare them with humans on even ground.
That brings up a good point though. If the computer says it's a bad idea, and backs that up with evidence, might it not actually be a bad idea? The whole point of evidence-based medicine is to improve outcomes (and save money) by reducing late diagnosis, misdiagnosis and unnecessary procedures. If, in fact, the computer is right most of the time and you don't actually need that procedure, then it will save money. There will always be errors, whether it's the fault of a doctor or the computer; the goal is to reduce their cost and frequency.
Here's another take: If you assume a certain amount (or even most) unnecessary procedures are a result of defensive medicine and doctors covering there asses, then might not the computer give them an excuse to omit those procedures which, medically, they already know are unnecessary?
The nice thing is that its result is not just spat out of a black box--it gives a pretty accurate confidence measure, and actually links back to the articles that led it to each conclusion. That means the doctor can go and read them for himself. He may find articles he never would have found otherwise, and become a better doctor for it. It also gives the basis upon which to challenge the computer in court, if it comes to that ("Toronto", anyone?). I think the hope of WellPoint is that it will allow doctors to learn from research faster and more efficiently, so that young doctors learn faster and old doctors stay current. The more the doctors on the front lines of medicine know, the better patient outcomes will be. Nobody is saying the computer is going to ever replace the doctors altogether.
Then the legal department will come and screw everything up, of course, but we can wait a little while before that happens.
1) I heard recently that the reason unemployment remaining flat because the government as a whole is cutting jobs (mostly contractors) at the same rate the private sector is creating jobs. That sounds pretty significant to me, maybe you wouldn't call it "devastating" but it's definitely relevant to the discussion.
2) Science and technology investment, of which NASA is a part, is precisely that: an investment. Infrastructure, education, health care, and environmental regulations are also investments that increase productivity over the long term. Cut them, and you reduce economic output (and tax revenue) in decades to come.
3) Things that could be cut with fewer long-term consequences: tax breaks, subsidies, and foreign wars. Also social security reform with means testing, and a health care system that does not involve siphoning billions of dollars into the pockets of insurance executives.
BTW, I don't know why people (including Obama) think cutting business taxes will spur hiring. No business is going to hire unless they see demand for their services, and demand is spurred by consumer wealth, not business wealth. Unless the people who are actually employed get paid more, they will not increase demand and businesses won't hire, no matter how "cheap" employees become.
Problem is, there are so many other cuts in the budget that there are not much in the way of interplanetary missions being seriously considered. Either they already cut those programs and cutting the Pu enrichment followed naturally, or they are looking for excuses to cut the missions and making them pay for the enrichment directly is a way to make them go over-budget and get killed. Everybody at NASA is trying to get new projects rolling, but there is so little mission money left that most proposals are being turned down.
Sometimes the only way to change a policy is to go after those who enforce it. In crimes against humanity, subordinates can be held responsible for committing acts in addition to those who ordered them. This is on a smaller individual scale, but the same concept. It becomes much more difficult for leaders to commit wrongdoing if no one will follow their orders. Once there is dissent among the ranks, enforcement of the rules will fall off and the government will have to weigh the cost (both financial and political) of trying to step it back up. Granted, the job market isn't helping things ("do it or we'll just find someone else"), but just how far have we gotten actually suing the government?
This particular model has only two settings, 1000mW and 500mW. I would have expected a 100mW setting as well. As it stands, neither of the two power levels are particularly safe.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't IBM already have that patent?
Nobody uses omnidirectional antennas for ham operation in 2.4Ghz. Almost all operation is with satellites or point-to-point, and 10- to 20-element yagi beams are standard equipment. It's because of simple physics and the distance involved, plus there are way more sources of noise on S-band than your little directional router. With the beam pointed straight up, they probably won't even hear your signal, nor you theirs. Funny thing about radio waves, they propagate (or not) the same in both directions. Plus, the actual power limit is 1500W , provided safety constraints are met, and 50W S-band amplifiers are pretty common--try beating that.
When has the TSA ever had to reveal or explain anything they do?
When they get a call from an angry congressperson about the treatment their relative/friend/self just received.
A private business is allowed to deny you entry to their property for no reason at all. So far, we have been operating under the assumption that the government is *not* allowed to deny you passage on a private airplane for no reason at all. Yes, they have tried, but the truth is they are not yet completely above the law.
Of course, personally, I don't feel the need to give them that opportunity. I take the train whenever I can.
They're trying to write it in a language legal folks will understand. The entire book is like a footnote in their minds, explaining the evidence of their cases but not actually part of the case.
Based on your argument, anyone who contracts HIV should be put in solitary confinement so they cannot transmit it to others, same as murderers. You can only get so far in suppressing animal instincts while ignoring the consequences of the ones that inevitably slip up. Besides, I'd much rather have a society where people go around fucking each other than beating each other to death, which is why the prisons are full of violent offenders instead of adulterers. (Though IIRC, there was an article a while back on how promiscuity vs. monogamy was actually a genetic spectrum and people naturally wind up all over this spectrum. It's not like *everyone* is programmed to be irresponsible.)
And you also ignore the fact that the site of the real HIV epidemic is Africa, where many cultures almost *expect* everyone to have multiple sexual partners. There are efforts to change the culture, but culture changes VERY slowly and in the mean time people are dying. A vaccine like this would be of immeasurable value to them.
Was I the only one who read the headline and thought it was about exploding lithium batteries?
According to that article, their costs went up a ton due to development of two new games that have yet to make them money. I have a hard time swallowing the article's claim that a 90% drop in profits isn't something to be alarmed about.
Sad but true. Short-sighted investors that are alarmed when executives put profits back into the company instead of dolling them out as dividends are what make so many CEOs drive perfectly good companies into the ground. They should all have their man-cards revoked and sent to business school.
Of course he is--after all, they sent him to evangelize on Slashdot, the irrefutable front line in the national economic policy debate.
Everything you said is true, but all those methods of shielding an enclosed space can be detected from outside the space by the resulting warp in the fields around it. The researchers in this article propose a method of layering materials so that the warping of the field is contained within the shield itself, rendering its presence undetectable. This is a significant advance over conventional shielding, but it has yet to be proven feasible.
This is shielding against *magnetic* detection, i.e. conventional metal detectors, not your favorite neighborhood X-ray body scanners.
I think I don't want to burden the government with the hassle of processing my tax dollars.
I'm pretty sure the patent on doors has expired.
Dear Internet Poster,
I am sorry to hear that your sarcasm meter is broken. I would like to take this opportunity to explain that my comment was made purely as a joke, and that I am actually a strong supporter of alternative energy and efficiency. I understand the technical feats involved in this project, but I just thought it was hilarious that their "super energy efficient processor" was being powered by an incandescent light bulb. (Not that making fun of climate denialists isn't fun too, but it's not what I was thinking...)
TC
P.S., this post was written in a light-hearted manner as well. Don't take it personally.
10mW cpu / 60W incandescent bulb = 0.16% efficient. Go green technology!
What would that world look like?
Slavery.
All it takes is one false negative in a case where an oncologist could have made a positive diagnosis, and it proves relying on the computer is unsafe. Are they going to put it through 900 rigorous trials like I just described? Would you trust your wife or daughter's illness to Watson if they don't? Even if they do?
I don't want to dispute your point, but for the sake of argument, how many false negative diagnoses are made by human oncologists? I understand that a false negative is more serious than a false positive because you would always get a second opinion on a positive diagnosis but not necessarily a negative one.
I actually didn't fully appreciate that they were trying to use it specifically against cancer. I thought it would be more useful in a general practice, where a few symptoms could correspond to multiple different diseases, and the computer could help pick which one. I still don't think they're trying to replace skilled oncologists. This could definitely get hairy, but I'm still willing to give computers the benefit of the doubt and compare them with humans on even ground.
That brings up a good point though. If the computer says it's a bad idea, and backs that up with evidence, might it not actually be a bad idea? The whole point of evidence-based medicine is to improve outcomes (and save money) by reducing late diagnosis, misdiagnosis and unnecessary procedures. If, in fact, the computer is right most of the time and you don't actually need that procedure, then it will save money. There will always be errors, whether it's the fault of a doctor or the computer; the goal is to reduce their cost and frequency.
Here's another take: If you assume a certain amount (or even most) unnecessary procedures are a result of defensive medicine and doctors covering there asses, then might not the computer give them an excuse to omit those procedures which, medically, they already know are unnecessary?
The nice thing is that its result is not just spat out of a black box--it gives a pretty accurate confidence measure, and actually links back to the articles that led it to each conclusion. That means the doctor can go and read them for himself. He may find articles he never would have found otherwise, and become a better doctor for it. It also gives the basis upon which to challenge the computer in court, if it comes to that ("Toronto", anyone?). I think the hope of WellPoint is that it will allow doctors to learn from research faster and more efficiently, so that young doctors learn faster and old doctors stay current. The more the doctors on the front lines of medicine know, the better patient outcomes will be. Nobody is saying the computer is going to ever replace the doctors altogether.
Then the legal department will come and screw everything up, of course, but we can wait a little while before that happens.
1) I heard recently that the reason unemployment remaining flat because the government as a whole is cutting jobs (mostly contractors) at the same rate the private sector is creating jobs. That sounds pretty significant to me, maybe you wouldn't call it "devastating" but it's definitely relevant to the discussion.
2) Science and technology investment, of which NASA is a part, is precisely that: an investment. Infrastructure, education, health care, and environmental regulations are also investments that increase productivity over the long term. Cut them, and you reduce economic output (and tax revenue) in decades to come.
3) Things that could be cut with fewer long-term consequences: tax breaks, subsidies, and foreign wars. Also social security reform with means testing, and a health care system that does not involve siphoning billions of dollars into the pockets of insurance executives.
BTW, I don't know why people (including Obama) think cutting business taxes will spur hiring. No business is going to hire unless they see demand for their services, and demand is spurred by consumer wealth, not business wealth. Unless the people who are actually employed get paid more, they will not increase demand and businesses won't hire, no matter how "cheap" employees become.
Problem is, there are so many other cuts in the budget that there are not much in the way of interplanetary missions being seriously considered. Either they already cut those programs and cutting the Pu enrichment followed naturally, or they are looking for excuses to cut the missions and making them pay for the enrichment directly is a way to make them go over-budget and get killed. Everybody at NASA is trying to get new projects rolling, but there is so little mission money left that most proposals are being turned down.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu Wikiquote agrees; the handwriting interpretation is one I have heard before but is likely just a cynical satire upon the original context.
"Art 404" = "Art not found". In other words, it is not art.
Sometimes the only way to change a policy is to go after those who enforce it. In crimes against humanity, subordinates can be held responsible for committing acts in addition to those who ordered them. This is on a smaller individual scale, but the same concept. It becomes much more difficult for leaders to commit wrongdoing if no one will follow their orders. Once there is dissent among the ranks, enforcement of the rules will fall off and the government will have to weigh the cost (both financial and political) of trying to step it back up. Granted, the job market isn't helping things ("do it or we'll just find someone else"), but just how far have we gotten actually suing the government?
Then I guess you better start paying Bill Gates his fair royalties for inventing your idea!
This particular model has only two settings, 1000mW and 500mW. I would have expected a 100mW setting as well. As it stands, neither of the two power levels are particularly safe.