Plagiarism is an academic concept, not an artistic one. Reuse of previous art in new art pieces has a very long history, in all forms of art: music, theater, painting, literature, dance, etc. There used to be nothing wrong with it, it didn't even need to be acknowledged.
Misapplying the concept of plagiarism to art probably has two sources: (1) academics who over-analyze art, and (2) greedy copyright holders who want to be able to make money off of even the slightest hint of reuse of their content.
"MultiTouch" was the missing piece to get the iPhone out the door.
MultiTouch was a nice gimmick, something that gave them a brand identity, just like other UI quirks before that. It's not an essential feature; you can build an excellent phone without it.
Microsoft invests a ton of money in research and acquiring companies, but it never seems to have much impact on their products.
Apple invests nothing in research and a lot in acquiring companies, and they are excellent at getting their money's worth by putting the technology into products.
Google invests a decent amount of money in their own research (but they aren't as blue sky as Microsoft Research), they acquire quite a bit, and they usually end up putting a fair amount of both in-house and acquired technology into products.
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.
The biggest data whores in the known universe are governments; or do you seriously believe that they can't listen in to everything you say or do online?
Your ISP, Google, Microsoft, your government--they are all likely getting most of your E-mails and appointments anyway, one way or another. You can't even escape it by switching ISPs, since your conversations go through their wires and onto their servers anyway.
Not all code needs to be released; sometimes, the code isn't needed for reproducing a result or the formulas in the paper are sufficient.
However, climate modeling is such a complex process, and its implications so serious, that it is outrageous if climate modeling code isn't fully and completely available. Climate modeling code needs to be extensively peer reviewed and until people can reproduce the results and show that the models behave reasonably under different conditions, the results cannot be trusted.
maybe Oracle doesn't want to go under like Sun did and therefore is canceling frivolous "feel good" projects that add ZERO to their bottom line.
Actually, having a extra bunch of good accessibility guys on their payroll would have contributed to their bottom line. Their decision is rather shortsighted.
Experienced accessibility and GUI guys are hard to find and important to a company the size of Oracle. The people working on Gnome accessibility are quite good.
Oracle should have kept them. They could have put them to work on other projects and let them continue Gnome work on the side.
So, assuming that the EM radiation *can* affect protein folding and assuming the hypothetical fact that it would have to happen to many proteins
That's a bad hypothesis. Any effects of microwaves on proteins probably affects only proteins that have some unusual structure and are particularly susceptible.
Maybe microwaves only affect people with a marginally functioning mutant form of some protein and that's why the effect is so rare.
Humans (and other life forms) came into existence and evolved in the presence of all kinds of EM radiation from the sun, the big bang, etc.
Microwaves do not occur at significant levels in the environment, hence there wouldn't have been any pressure to adapt to them.
Overall, you're really jumping to conclusions on a lot of things and reasoning carelessly. Right now, all one can say is that (1) microwave exposure is statistically low-risk (otherwise we'd see more cancers), but (2) it is physically possible that they cause disease at some low rate (since we do see non-thermal effects in experiments).
Theoretically, the perfect type of low energy radiation could denature tumor suppressant proteins in a nucleated keratinocyte and generate a squamous cell carcinoma.
That's a very unlikely form of non-thermal effects of microwaves on cells. If microwaves cause cancer, it does so by changing some binding constants, channels, or reaction rates.
If it exists, it's a small effect, and I won't stop using my cell phone because of it.
but there is no discussion of this pubs relevance to cell phones at all [...] What you need to do is show me conclusive evidence that a 2.5Ghz signal at 1 or 2 watts and at a distance of less that 1cm from human (or at least a mammal) tissue will sufficiently denature proteins to cause disease...
I don't need to show that since I'm not claiming that cell phones cause cancer; I simply don't know (nobody does). I'm only saying that none of your arguments against the possibility hold water. In particular, there are non-thermal effects.
then follow with your RELEVANT evidence.
My evidence is relevant to my claim.
Tell me how you are qualified and
I'm not going to get into a pissing match over unverifiable credentials with you. If you have the degree you claim you have, you didn't get your money's worth.
(I'll respond to your other b.s. in the other thread)
OK, well, let's hope so. I think having F# available under an open source license would be nice, but if it's not happening this year, I think they missed their chance.
Cult: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." (dictionary.com)
As far as I'm concerned, Catholicism is false, extremist, and it has a "charismatic leader" (to its members, not to me). Many of its most devoted members live outside conventional society. Hence, I would call it a cult, even if you might not.
Or maybe you're one of those freetards that constantly expect people to give them free shit.
Yes, I am one of those freetards. I used to be willing to pay for shit from companies like Microsoft, but I have gotten screwed too often.
I'm still willing to pay for something, but I'm not willing to pay for something like a language compiler. If Microsoft wants to establish F# as a standard, they need to make it free and open source.
Also, given that F# is largely a clone of a publicly financed, open source software project and has grown out of decades of publicly financed research, there is a reasonable expectation that F# should be free and open source.
There are a lot of algorithms that can best be expressed and (theoretically) most efficiently solved by recursion.
Whether you use recursion or loops generally makes no difference for asymptotic performance, since they can be easily transformed into one another. For actual speed, loops are always at least as fast as recursion.
(a) most programmers are not comfortable with recursion
Most programmers don't seem to have a problem with recursion. They don't like tail recursion, but that's because tail recursion doesn't make a lot of sense in an OOL.
My question for/. is simply: why? Why co modern OO languages not provide decent optimizations for recursion? Why are most programmers uncomfortable with it? What can be done to break this cycle?
Tail recursion makes most sense if you want to avoid assignment. Since OOLs have assignment, often a loop is just the better construct. Most other kinds of recursion can't be optimized anyway.
FWIW, gcc does support tail recursion optimization. Of course, if you rely on it, your program may not run as well on other compilers.
Are you going to make F# available under an open source license like Apache, BSD, or LGPL? The current shared source license really makes F# unattractive for both commercial and academic use. Given how much F# builds on OCAML, it would also only seem fair if F# itself becamse open source.
Well, in addition to heating, that may have a direct effect on some enzymes and proteins and the way they bend and deform randomly over time, that can cause changes in cell regulation
That shining a 2 watt light on the side of your head will give you brain cancer.
That example actually illustrates your faulty reasoning: that light affects cell regulation in ways other than those that come from heating. It just happens to be that none of those lead to cancer.
Likewise, microwaves can affect biological molecules and processes in ways other than heating the surrounding water. That actually has been demonstrated experimentally. What we don't know is whether that can also lead to cancer.
These studies are total BS
Yes, they are. But so are your counterarguments.
Overall, we just don't know whether microwaves can cause cancer, but we do know that there are plausible mechanisms by which it might happen. We also know that if it happens, it must be fairly rare.
For an individual, cell phones are safe; whatever increase in brain cancers they may cause is negligible compared to other risks. We know that from current statistics.
As a public health issue, even a 1% increase in brain cancers might be significant because they are expensive and hard to treat.
As a scientific question, whether (and how) non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer or not is important in and of itself, regardless of whether it has any health implications.
life would likely have evolved to not be affected by EM radiation
Oh, geez, because we have mechanisms to protect us from sunburns it's safe to step into an X-ray machine? I don't think so.
Biological systems have evolved protections against the EM radiation we encounter. That does not include microwaves (or X-rays).
position than you are to have a molecule get wiggled
Microwaves are perfect for "wiggling" molecules; that's why we use them for boiling water.
but by the time they were educated enough to understand the arguments they would know enough to realize their skepticism was simply ignorance and doubt.
I do hope that the global warming arguments are better founded than the unphysical b.s. you have written.
Slashdot Mirror
Plagiarism is an academic concept, not an artistic one. Reuse of previous art in new art pieces has a very long history, in all forms of art: music, theater, painting, literature, dance, etc. There used to be nothing wrong with it, it didn't even need to be acknowledged.
Misapplying the concept of plagiarism to art probably has two sources: (1) academics who over-analyze art, and (2) greedy copyright holders who want to be able to make money off of even the slightest hint of reuse of their content.
Mommy, the root kit did it!
"MultiTouch" was the missing piece to get the iPhone out the door.
MultiTouch was a nice gimmick, something that gave them a brand identity, just like other UI quirks before that. It's not an essential feature; you can build an excellent phone without it.
The three companies are quite different.
Microsoft invests a ton of money in research and acquiring companies, but it never seems to have much impact on their products.
Apple invests nothing in research and a lot in acquiring companies, and they are excellent at getting their money's worth by putting the technology into products.
Google invests a decent amount of money in their own research (but they aren't as blue sky as Microsoft Research), they acquire quite a bit, and they usually end up putting a fair amount of both in-house and acquired technology into products.
And that's the problem when you give your data to the biggest data whore in the known universe.
The biggest data whores in the known universe are governments; or do you seriously believe that they can't listen in to everything you say or do online?
Your ISP, Google, Microsoft, your government--they are all likely getting most of your E-mails and appointments anyway, one way or another. You can't even escape it by switching ISPs, since your conversations go through their wires and onto their servers anyway.
Not all code needs to be released; sometimes, the code isn't needed for reproducing a result or the formulas in the paper are sufficient.
However, climate modeling is such a complex process, and its implications so serious, that it is outrageous if climate modeling code isn't fully and completely available. Climate modeling code needs to be extensively peer reviewed and until people can reproduce the results and show that the models behave reasonably under different conditions, the results cannot be trusted.
maybe Oracle doesn't want to go under like Sun did and therefore is canceling frivolous "feel good" projects that add ZERO to their bottom line.
Actually, having a extra bunch of good accessibility guys on their payroll would have contributed to their bottom line. Their decision is rather shortsighted.
Experienced accessibility and GUI guys are hard to find and important to a company the size of Oracle. The people working on Gnome accessibility are quite good.
Oracle should have kept them. They could have put them to work on other projects and let them continue Gnome work on the side.
It's really funny how someone like you with just a B.S. can be so full of himself and write so much unscientific bullshit.
So, assuming that the EM radiation *can* affect protein folding and assuming the hypothetical fact that it would have to happen to many proteins
That's a bad hypothesis. Any effects of microwaves on proteins probably affects only proteins that have some unusual structure and are particularly susceptible.
Maybe microwaves only affect people with a marginally functioning mutant form of some protein and that's why the effect is so rare.
Humans (and other life forms) came into existence and evolved in the presence of all kinds of EM radiation from the sun, the big bang, etc.
Microwaves do not occur at significant levels in the environment, hence there wouldn't have been any pressure to adapt to them.
Overall, you're really jumping to conclusions on a lot of things and reasoning carelessly. Right now, all one can say is that (1) microwave exposure is statistically low-risk (otherwise we'd see more cancers), but (2) it is physically possible that they cause disease at some low rate (since we do see non-thermal effects in experiments).
Theoretically, the perfect type of low energy radiation could denature tumor suppressant proteins in a nucleated keratinocyte and generate a squamous cell carcinoma.
That's a very unlikely form of non-thermal effects of microwaves on cells. If microwaves cause cancer, it does so by changing some binding constants, channels, or reaction rates.
If it exists, it's a small effect, and I won't stop using my cell phone because of it.
but there is no discussion of this pubs relevance to cell phones at all [...] What you need to do is show me conclusive evidence that a 2.5Ghz signal at 1 or 2 watts and at a distance of less that 1cm from human (or at least a mammal) tissue will sufficiently denature proteins to cause disease...
I don't need to show that since I'm not claiming that cell phones cause cancer; I simply don't know (nobody does). I'm only saying that none of your arguments against the possibility hold water. In particular, there are non-thermal effects.
then follow with your RELEVANT evidence.
My evidence is relevant to my claim.
Tell me how you are qualified and
I'm not going to get into a pissing match over unverifiable credentials with you. If you have the degree you claim you have, you didn't get your money's worth.
(I'll respond to your other b.s. in the other thread)
Whereas math and physics, where people take copious notes, are all about rote memorization? I don't think so.
If you don't need to take notes, you aren't being challenged enough.
OK, well, let's hope so. I think having F# available under an open source license would be nice, but if it's not happening this year, I think they missed their chance.
Cult: "a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader." (dictionary.com)
As far as I'm concerned, Catholicism is false, extremist, and it has a "charismatic leader" (to its members, not to me). Many of its most devoted members live outside conventional society. Hence, I would call it a cult, even if you might not.
get at me when you've got something significant to say.
There's a large literature on non-thermal microwave effects. But here's an example that gets directly at proteins:
http://www.fys.dtu.dk/English/Service/Phonebook.aspx?lg=showcommon&id=177161
Molecules wiggle all the time above 0 kelvin...
Your statement mostly shows that you're completely ignorant of how proteins fold or function.
Thanks; however, as I recall, they've been promising open source releases earlier and they seem to keep getting pushed back.
Or maybe you're one of those freetards that constantly expect people to give them free shit.
Yes, I am one of those freetards. I used to be willing to pay for shit from companies like Microsoft, but I have gotten screwed too often.
I'm still willing to pay for something, but I'm not willing to pay for something like a language compiler. If Microsoft wants to establish F# as a standard, they need to make it free and open source.
Also, given that F# is largely a clone of a publicly financed, open source software project and has grown out of decades of publicly financed research, there is a reasonable expectation that F# should be free and open source.
There are a lot of algorithms that can best be expressed and (theoretically) most efficiently solved by recursion.
Whether you use recursion or loops generally makes no difference for asymptotic performance, since they can be easily transformed into one another. For actual speed, loops are always at least as fast as recursion.
(a) most programmers are not comfortable with recursion
Most programmers don't seem to have a problem with recursion. They don't like tail recursion, but that's because tail recursion doesn't make a lot of sense in an OOL.
My question for /. is simply: why? Why co modern OO languages not provide decent optimizations for recursion? Why are most programmers uncomfortable with it? What can be done to break this cycle?
Tail recursion makes most sense if you want to avoid assignment. Since OOLs have assignment, often a loop is just the better construct. Most other kinds of recursion can't be optimized anyway.
FWIW, gcc does support tail recursion optimization. Of course, if you rely on it, your program may not run as well on other compilers.
Are you going to make F# available under an open source license like Apache, BSD, or LGPL? The current shared source license really makes F# unattractive for both commercial and academic use. Given how much F# builds on OCAML, it would also only seem fair if F# itself becamse open source.
* Europeans get nothing in return for the transmission of their sensitive data
Seems to me you can't blackmail people who don't actually want something.
Do you seriously think Americans give a damn what Europeans or European diplomats think of Kennard?
poses a much more substantial risk to the user
So? Is there some rule that says we should study only one public health issue at a time?
as well as to people around him or her, that any effects of ionizing radiation
Cell phones don't emit ionizing radiation.
Which part of this did you fail to understand?
That shining a 2 watt light on the side of your head will give you brain cancer.
That example actually illustrates your faulty reasoning: that light affects cell regulation in ways other than those that come from heating. It just happens to be that none of those lead to cancer.
Likewise, microwaves can affect biological molecules and processes in ways other than heating the surrounding water. That actually has been demonstrated experimentally. What we don't know is whether that can also lead to cancer.
These studies are total BS
Yes, they are. But so are your counterarguments.
Overall, we just don't know whether microwaves can cause cancer, but we do know that there are plausible mechanisms by which it might happen. We also know that if it happens, it must be fairly rare.
For an individual, cell phones are safe; whatever increase in brain cancers they may cause is negligible compared to other risks. We know that from current statistics.
As a public health issue, even a 1% increase in brain cancers might be significant because they are expensive and hard to treat.
As a scientific question, whether (and how) non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer or not is important in and of itself, regardless of whether it has any health implications.
life would likely have evolved to not be affected by EM radiation
Oh, geez, because we have mechanisms to protect us from sunburns it's safe to step into an X-ray machine? I don't think so.
Biological systems have evolved protections against the EM radiation we encounter. That does not include microwaves (or X-rays).
position than you are to have a molecule get wiggled
Microwaves are perfect for "wiggling" molecules; that's why we use them for boiling water.
but by the time they were educated enough to understand the arguments they would know enough to realize their skepticism was simply ignorance and doubt.
I do hope that the global warming arguments are better founded than the unphysical b.s. you have written.