The only people needing navigational aids for the surface of IO are people playing space flight simulators or solar system-wide MMORGs. And, frankly, they don't care if the map is a little old. Though, live updates would certainly make the missions more exciting.
Says who? Doro Pesch (THE Metal Queen), Judas Priest, Iron Maiden -- all use dynamic range and subtlety like nobody else. These are the Gods of Metal and the Gods decide. If the peons in the genre don't use range and subtlety, they aren't True Metal Heads, they're morons.
Lossless 16-bit digital formats give you a dynamic range of 96dB, but audio engineers (according to the article) measure vinyl as having 112dB - nearly double the claim that is typically repeated but obviously not actually measured.
If you would like to refute this, please do. But not with a link to the 60dB claim. You cant refute a refutation by repeating the original. You'll need to show me something that analyzes this counter-claim and explains why it is incorrect.
Hearing recovers just fine, given time. The ear is much better at healing than had been thought at one time. What does NOT heal with time is the brain's ability to process sound. The brain cannot learn to distinguish sounds it never gets the chance to hear. Give someone who has poor sensitivity long enough exposure to quality audio systems and they'll KNOW there's a difference. They may not be able to quantify what that improvement is, but they WILL know that there is a difference.
Bring someone up right, from the very beginning, and the difference will be so great that low-quality sound will be painful for them to hear. As it damn well should be.
Anyone can be inured to crap, and lose their sensitivity, but that doesn't make the crap any better. It makes the person that much less.
I'm here because I understand what you apparently do not -- that he is NOT an economist, that his skills in economics are OLD, RUSTY and LARGELY OBSOLETE. Your brain-dead whinging demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of economics, education, skill retention or, well, anything else.
Bug off, you're not welcome here, you're a damn fool and should go join the other damn fools on K5.
Yeah, I remember Netscape 4. Hardly ever used it, went back to 3. I'd have preferred to have continued using 0.95 - it was the fastest of the lot and the most stable - but it didn't support the newer HTML standards.
IE4 was not noticeably better than Netscape 4, the biggest advantages it had were that it had a prominent place on the desktop and could not be de-installed easily. The OS had been trojaned to slow down or crash in the event that IE was removed or genuinely disabled.
It was about that time I suddenly discovered the joys of Opera, since the Oracle Web browser (which was actually good) had been discontinued. The Oracle browser had the same windowing feature as Opera, but it also had things like a built-in web server. Wouldn't surprise me if they had a common ancestor.
Also at that time, the W3C were developing their own browser for demonstrating compliance with standards. It could not only view pages, it could edit them too. Amaya is still around, but little-used. It was the only browser that supported the original maths tags, tags that Microsoft and Netscape killed off in their efforts to compete through being different.
Internet Explorer wasn't all that useful but killed Netscape because "it was there" and for no other reason. Things don't have to be useful to be used. If anything, being useful adds to expense but not to profit (see story on why users will only pay 65c for security) so being useless is actually the best way to win in the marketplace.
I'm sure half the bankers have PhDs in economics, too. No, that is NOT sufficient credentials. You cannot evaluate the economics if you do not understand the mechanisms behind the successes and the failures. The money does NOT exist in a vaccuum, and those who attempt to say otherwise are the moronic imbeciles who are responsible for the current meltdown.
No-one is going to read 329 warnings, but no-one is going to read sine tables either. Biomedical Informatics - and indeed any form of information clearing - is useful to the extent that we can avoid information saturation and filter down to what is actually important in some specific case.
There, of course, is the crunch. Services like PubMed are highly restricted, so the number of people with the skills to write data digestion software AND who have access to the data AND who have an interest (even a contractual one) to write such software is also going to be highly restricted. This limits the number of algorithms out there for analyzing the data and, in turn, limits the capacity of medical experts to make use of what is out there.
Has the full table of drug interactions been publicly published, in a machine-processable format? My suspicion is no. Given that repeat studies don't get published, as a matter of policy by journals, refutations of this analysis won't get documented and therefore any errors will be perpetuated. It doesn't help that medical journals are expensive to publish in and are biased in favour of sponsors. Further, because this is a meta-study, it is subject to the problem that 2% of scientists are guilty of misconduct and that patients are now so hyped up about side-effects that mis-reporting as a form of hypochondria may distort the results. It's not like doctors conduct tests to analyze these reports. There may not be any errors in this study, but if there are then neither we nor any doctor will know of it. The only obvious way to avoid that is to make analysis of the analysis a public affair.
And what if the table is fully accurate? Given that a tiny fraction of the publications ever get read, how many doctors will have a copy of that table? In paper or electronic form? Given the current economic climate and the tight budgetary constraints, it might take months if not years for the smaller doctor's offices to have databases containing the information. And longer for those databases to be usable in any practical fashion.
or the fact that a 320 slice CT generates so many layers of images that they can't all be carefully reviewed (and an abnormality may be so small it only appears in a couple of them)
That is so very, very true. And the problem is getting worse, not better. Scanners are improving all the time, the human brain is not, and the software used to convey data from the scanners to the brain is all that stands between the doctor and information overload. MRI scanners are up to 13T* - it's not altogether clear why as the 9.1T ones could see individual neurons, but there ya go - but since the bulk of hospitals use 2.5-3T MRIs and software is invariably written for the market, informatics on the BIG systems is primitive in comparison to the volume of data involved. Not that it's terribly good even for the smaller units.
*Yes, I know, 7.3T is the maximum that is authorized in the US for non-research purposes, but research scanners for living patients are much more powerful than that. And research is where you want the BEST informatics, particularly in this case because repeatability is going to be a serious problem.
You are correct that the government likes to redefine terms. It makes for a serious problem, I agree. The best method is equal access, since it's harder to redefine equal - though prior administrations have certainly tried. Then there are the problems that resources are finite, there's a backlash from the right against unrestricted healthcare, and so on. I don't know how to solve these, but it would seem logical to aim for a middle ground somehow. Most of the random illnesses out there (eg: flu, bronchitis, heliobacter-type ulcers, and so on) are high demand, low profit, zero culpability. In short, stuff the markets hate and a national service can serve en-masse very cheaply.
Ideally, you'd end up with the service treating everything at zero (or near enough) cost to the patient. That is the correct end result. Right now, it is also an impossible result to achieve. So my thinking is you start with the stuff where there's least opposition, prove it doesn't cause people to become Stalinists or the world to explode, and then expand out.
I could be wrong. It has been known to happen, on occasion. It might be that you have to start with aiming for the end result and keep smashing into the brick wall until it crumbles. I don't know. I do know that what we have has actually fallen below third-world standards in places and that terrifies me. Though not nearly as much as campaign promises to lower the rest of America to that level.
A spook's blog. A SPOOK'S BLOG. Your best evidence is a guy who is paid to be paranoid being paranoid?
He's not a professor of economics, he has no qualifications in engineering, he's a national security adviser with zero understanding of anything real. He's not paid to understand what's real. He's paid to make up scare stories to get politicians to fund things.
To quote Twisted Sister, If that's your best, your best won't do.
The ones in Manchester, England, certainly preferred takeout. With stone knives from Essex Culture found in London, Essex lads were partial to finding the best eateries even then.
Possibly they did. By many of the paintings, there are symbols etched/painted. These are generally ignored, but it is entirely possible that this was proto-writing and new research is going into studying them.
Fission does generate emissions, although most are indirect. (Moving fuel rods in and out, for example.) Fusion would not, but governments are adverse to funding real power systems.
Slashdot Mirror
The only people needing navigational aids for the surface of IO are people playing space flight simulators or solar system-wide MMORGs. And, frankly, they don't care if the map is a little old. Though, live updates would certainly make the missions more exciting.
Comparative Linguistics is the usual term used for, well, comparing languages (including the same language in different eras).
Normally I oppose the death penalty but I think that for grammar errors, it would be too good for the culprit.
Says who? Doro Pesch (THE Metal Queen), Judas Priest, Iron Maiden -- all use dynamic range and subtlety like nobody else. These are the Gods of Metal and the Gods decide. If the peons in the genre don't use range and subtlety, they aren't True Metal Heads, they're morons.
http://www.stereophile.com/phonopreamps/199pass/index1.html
Lossless 16-bit digital formats give you a dynamic range of 96dB, but audio engineers (according to the article) measure vinyl as having 112dB - nearly double the claim that is typically repeated but obviously not actually measured.
If you would like to refute this, please do. But not with a link to the 60dB claim. You cant refute a refutation by repeating the original. You'll need to show me something that analyzes this counter-claim and explains why it is incorrect.
Hearing recovers just fine, given time. The ear is much better at healing than had been thought at one time. What does NOT heal with time is the brain's ability to process sound. The brain cannot learn to distinguish sounds it never gets the chance to hear. Give someone who has poor sensitivity long enough exposure to quality audio systems and they'll KNOW there's a difference. They may not be able to quantify what that improvement is, but they WILL know that there is a difference.
Bring someone up right, from the very beginning, and the difference will be so great that low-quality sound will be painful for them to hear. As it damn well should be.
Anyone can be inured to crap, and lose their sensitivity, but that doesn't make the crap any better. It makes the person that much less.
Good quality vinyl on a quality turntable has better dynamics than any MP3.
I'm here because I understand what you apparently do not -- that he is NOT an economist, that his skills in economics are OLD, RUSTY and LARGELY OBSOLETE. Your brain-dead whinging demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of economics, education, skill retention or, well, anything else.
Bug off, you're not welcome here, you're a damn fool and should go join the other damn fools on K5.
Yeah, I remember Netscape 4. Hardly ever used it, went back to 3. I'd have preferred to have continued using 0.95 - it was the fastest of the lot and the most stable - but it didn't support the newer HTML standards.
IE4 was not noticeably better than Netscape 4, the biggest advantages it had were that it had a prominent place on the desktop and could not be de-installed easily. The OS had been trojaned to slow down or crash in the event that IE was removed or genuinely disabled.
It was about that time I suddenly discovered the joys of Opera, since the Oracle Web browser (which was actually good) had been discontinued. The Oracle browser had the same windowing feature as Opera, but it also had things like a built-in web server. Wouldn't surprise me if they had a common ancestor.
Also at that time, the W3C were developing their own browser for demonstrating compliance with standards. It could not only view pages, it could edit them too. Amaya is still around, but little-used. It was the only browser that supported the original maths tags, tags that Microsoft and Netscape killed off in their efforts to compete through being different.
He is not a professor of economics, his own bio states he is professor of National Security Affairs. The only person done is you.
Internet Explorer wasn't all that useful but killed Netscape because "it was there" and for no other reason. Things don't have to be useful to be used. If anything, being useful adds to expense but not to profit (see story on why users will only pay 65c for security) so being useless is actually the best way to win in the marketplace.
I'm sure half the bankers have PhDs in economics, too. No, that is NOT sufficient credentials. You cannot evaluate the economics if you do not understand the mechanisms behind the successes and the failures. The money does NOT exist in a vaccuum, and those who attempt to say otherwise are the moronic imbeciles who are responsible for the current meltdown.
They'd only overturn the ban for companies donating to political campaigns, surely.
Sherlock Holmes always recommended a 7% solution.
No-one is going to read 329 warnings, but no-one is going to read sine tables either. Biomedical Informatics - and indeed any form of information clearing - is useful to the extent that we can avoid information saturation and filter down to what is actually important in some specific case.
There, of course, is the crunch. Services like PubMed are highly restricted, so the number of people with the skills to write data digestion software AND who have access to the data AND who have an interest (even a contractual one) to write such software is also going to be highly restricted. This limits the number of algorithms out there for analyzing the data and, in turn, limits the capacity of medical experts to make use of what is out there.
Has the full table of drug interactions been publicly published, in a machine-processable format? My suspicion is no. Given that repeat studies don't get published, as a matter of policy by journals, refutations of this analysis won't get documented and therefore any errors will be perpetuated. It doesn't help that medical journals are expensive to publish in and are biased in favour of sponsors. Further, because this is a meta-study, it is subject to the problem that 2% of scientists are guilty of misconduct and that patients are now so hyped up about side-effects that mis-reporting as a form of hypochondria may distort the results. It's not like doctors conduct tests to analyze these reports. There may not be any errors in this study, but if there are then neither we nor any doctor will know of it. The only obvious way to avoid that is to make analysis of the analysis a public affair.
And what if the table is fully accurate? Given that a tiny fraction of the publications ever get read, how many doctors will have a copy of that table? In paper or electronic form? Given the current economic climate and the tight budgetary constraints, it might take months if not years for the smaller doctor's offices to have databases containing the information. And longer for those databases to be usable in any practical fashion.
That is so very, very true. And the problem is getting worse, not better. Scanners are improving all the time, the human brain is not, and the software used to convey data from the scanners to the brain is all that stands between the doctor and information overload. MRI scanners are up to 13T* - it's not altogether clear why as the 9.1T ones could see individual neurons, but there ya go - but since the bulk of hospitals use 2.5-3T MRIs and software is invariably written for the market, informatics on the BIG systems is primitive in comparison to the volume of data involved. Not that it's terribly good even for the smaller units.
*Yes, I know, 7.3T is the maximum that is authorized in the US for non-research purposes, but research scanners for living patients are much more powerful than that. And research is where you want the BEST informatics, particularly in this case because repeatability is going to be a serious problem.
A newt or a Newt? The former, I can live with.
I say that IS a legitimate complaint. LOOK AT THE SOURCE. A total fruitcake with NO credibility in the field in which he is spouting off in.
Wouldn't know. Never invited to any.
You are correct that the government likes to redefine terms. It makes for a serious problem, I agree. The best method is equal access, since it's harder to redefine equal - though prior administrations have certainly tried. Then there are the problems that resources are finite, there's a backlash from the right against unrestricted healthcare, and so on. I don't know how to solve these, but it would seem logical to aim for a middle ground somehow. Most of the random illnesses out there (eg: flu, bronchitis, heliobacter-type ulcers, and so on) are high demand, low profit, zero culpability. In short, stuff the markets hate and a national service can serve en-masse very cheaply.
Ideally, you'd end up with the service treating everything at zero (or near enough) cost to the patient. That is the correct end result. Right now, it is also an impossible result to achieve. So my thinking is you start with the stuff where there's least opposition, prove it doesn't cause people to become Stalinists or the world to explode, and then expand out.
I could be wrong. It has been known to happen, on occasion. It might be that you have to start with aiming for the end result and keep smashing into the brick wall until it crumbles. I don't know. I do know that what we have has actually fallen below third-world standards in places and that terrifies me. Though not nearly as much as campaign promises to lower the rest of America to that level.
A spook's blog. A SPOOK'S BLOG. Your best evidence is a guy who is paid to be paranoid being paranoid?
He's not a professor of economics, he has no qualifications in engineering, he's a national security adviser with zero understanding of anything real. He's not paid to understand what's real. He's paid to make up scare stories to get politicians to fund things.
To quote Twisted Sister, If that's your best, your best won't do.
The ones in Manchester, England, certainly preferred takeout. With stone knives from Essex Culture found in London, Essex lads were partial to finding the best eateries even then.
DNA says that some of the cousins did rather more than kiss. So long as it was all legal and proper, that's all right though.
Possibly they did. By many of the paintings, there are symbols etched/painted. These are generally ignored, but it is entirely possible that this was proto-writing and new research is going into studying them.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/11/cave-painting-symbols-language-evolution
Then you need a better filesystem integrity checker.
Fission does generate emissions, although most are indirect. (Moving fuel rods in and out, for example.) Fusion would not, but governments are adverse to funding real power systems.