The FCC 'advice' is based on supposition, not science.
Yeah, but science is all based on suppositions.
It goes like this.
A -> B (RF causes local heating)
B -> C (Local heating causes disease)
So A -> C (RF causes disease)
But A -> C was shown not to be true, and B -> C has never been established, but given the A->C thing, is almost certainly not true.
You made it too easy. First, it may not be as simple as A->B->C; second there's more than heating: "The International Agency for Research on Cancer Exit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier)."
I concur that right now it is idiotic to demonize/fear cellphones because they could cause cancer (or other health problems), however it's equally idiotic being dismissive about it. We know well what happened with asbestos and papilloma virus.
I think that the difficulty is to put that phrase in the right context. A mekhashefa was not necessarily the same kind of sorceress who practiced Ov and Yid’oni (necromancy and divination, right?), but possibly some other kind of witch (the Old Testament identifies many different kinds of witchcraft, the peculiarities of which are mostly forgotten).
That is the usual./ do-it-yourself interpretation of the Bible. First of all, the original Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgata) is based on the Greek one and it is known to be somewhat imprecise for the Old Testament, not only because it is a translation of a translation, but also because Jerome did not like literal translations ("non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu" as he wrote). However, while the word is a little obscure, there is no doubt that the original Hebrew word is a feminine term related to kashaf (sorcerer, masculine) and keshef (sorcery), so the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).
It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).
I'd be more impressed with OpenBSD not being hacked, and even that is essentially just an init process and sshd.
At the Pwn2Own 2008 contest Ubuntu was undefeated, and it was thew first and last time a Linux based OS was present at the contest. Well, if you don't include Android and Chrome OS.
Well, but the oil lobby never lobbied to sell their oil, they do not need to. They actually lobby to get more oil/gas and to leave less oil/gas to the competition (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya wars etc.). Heck, more funds for green power companies means less competition in the oil extraction business, so the only guys who are screwed by this situation are those from the nuclear power lobby. Those cannot compete with the oil and green lobbies.
I can't believe that a company in 2013 would have the audacity to think it can still get away with bundling its own browser with its OS! You'd never see this sort of behavior out of more responsible corporations like Apple.
Not again this garbage! And even modded insightful! This is a monopoly leverage case, so you need two things: 1) a monopoly 2)a product that you force on the users of your monopoly (a.k.a. the leverage)
Neither Apple nor Google are leveraging a monopoly:
1)Apple has not a monopoly , iPhones, iPads, iMacs and MacBooks do not constitute a monopoly in their respective markets.
2)Android is not sell by Google, but by the hardware producers (and among them, Google), so it never will be a monopolist.
I know that the latest trend on/. is saying how much M$ is good now, but this is getting ridiculous: a large corporation thinks they can get away with mocking a court (ooh, we're sorry, it was just a technical error, you know) and the first post is this anonymous garbage? Enough.
Breakdown of Nokia smartphone sales, last quarter of 2012:
*2.2m Symbian OS
*4.4m WP 7 + WP 8
*9.3m S40 full touch
total: 15.9m smartphones [1]
Windows Phone (7 and 8) makes up about a quarter of their total smartphone sales. The last quarter of 2011, they sold 19.6m smartphones, and the last quarter of 2010 28.3m, I can't see how 4.4m WP can max out their industrial capacity.
You do realise their annual reports are broken down into a little more detail than that right? You can see plain as day exactly how much Xbox brings in compared to Windows Phone[...]
The break down is about revenues, I was clearly talking about profits. I know that very well, in facts to me it's pretty clear that if the console business adds up to 70-80% of total division revenues and the division loses money (4 billions since 2002, this figure lacks the original Xbox launch and development cost, which is usually estimated at 1-2 billion more), then the console business must not be that profitable.
That's because while some don't like the patent system at large, many, I'd say the majority, find the software patent system despicable. This article is about the latter.
Moreover this is a friendly reminder for all those who think that the Xbox/Xbox 360 makes money: the royalties from mobile system patents are collected by the EDD, those, and not the Xbox, counterbalance the losses of Windows Phone.
I think it's more than a bit disingenuous because the video has this person's eyes superimposed over your e-mail while mischievous music plays in the background. We all know that it's not a person reading the e-mails, it's software doing latent semantic indexing or some such algorithm.
Do you really believe that Google NEVER assigns a human set of eyes to review emails - even when they're trying to better tune their ad-targeting algorithms?
It's much easier and more efficient to use test case emails than random real emails for algorithm tuning.
So because some people build bad or incomplete models, economics somehow does not use the scientific method? Curious logic you have there. Do you think that Rutherford model of the atom wasn't science just because it was later proven to be a bad model?
The Rutherford model isn't a bad model, neither the Dalton's model was bad, but better models happened as science advanced. The problem here is that these so called economic models aren't based on hard science.
Science is a PROCESS of putting forth a hypothesis and then a model to explain that hypothesis and then gathering evidence to support or refute that model
This is the great misconception: the model must not explain anything, it should be just a matter of fact, a mathematical consequence of the hard science behind the hypothesis. The point here is that there is no natural law behind economics, or if there is one, it is so distant from our current knowledge, that we need a century or two of psychiatry, psychology and sociology advancements prior to begin to just think about it. Behind these so called models there is just a bit of bad statistics, there is no more science in economics than in someone trying to predict what nation will win the 2018 FIFA World Cup, basing his "study" on statistics about the past World Cups.
[...]they're just models and that's a fact that people often lose sight of[...]
I'd say that's what their proponents almost always lose sight of. "People" just believe what the experts say.
Like all models, they have particular domains of applicability
In this case, the domain of dreams. When you elaborate a model, the most important thing is to determine its accuracy, that is its applicability. If you elaborate a wonderfully thought model, but fail to ascertain when it is applicable, and what is its accuracy (error variances, MSE etc.) you did nothing useful, really nothing. But economists do not want to be labelled as people who didn't achieve anything, so they skip the talk about applicability.
Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.
True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The same reason goes for all those mediocre scientists (the vast majority of them) who could never dream of topping the bill if there wasn't some heavy controversial and popularized debate like this. If there is no debate, it is because every thing that happens is dismissed as "it's all according to the models", yeah, how could it be differently? There are literally thousands of different models, predicting all and its contrary. But, yes, it is an event and there must be no debate, because it is certain and all according to the models. Mind you, I believe (that's the correct term) that there is a climate change, but everything beyond that is just to early to call.
that division had a few other things as well that were proven money losers. the x-box had the best attach rate for games for many years now
But that division has/had other things that were proven money grabbers: the EDD division collects royalties from mobile devices (Android phone/tablet makers, among others), Office for Mac (until 2010), actual devices (mice, keyboards). The division has lost a couple of billions since 2001, however this figure does not include the original Xbox development costs (the EDD was founded just prior the Xbox launch), so the actual losses could be even a billion or two more.
Slashdot Mirror
Sources recount a different story. It received a design approval for 330-min ETOPS, apparently it got no more.
It was designed for a ETOPS 330.
Brain-power is resource-powered.
The FCC 'advice' is based on supposition, not science.
Yeah, but science is all based on suppositions.
It goes like this. A -> B (RF causes local heating) B -> C (Local heating causes disease)
So A -> C (RF causes disease)
But A -> C was shown not to be true, and B -> C has never been established, but given the A->C thing, is almost certainly not true.
You made it too easy. First, it may not be as simple as A->B->C; second there's more than heating: "The International Agency for Research on Cancer Exit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier)."
I concur that right now it is idiotic to demonize/fear cellphones because they could cause cancer (or other health problems), however it's equally idiotic being dismissive about it. We know well what happened with asbestos and papilloma virus.
I think that the difficulty is to put that phrase in the right context. A mekhashefa was not necessarily the same kind of sorceress who practiced Ov and Yid’oni (necromancy and divination, right?), but possibly some other kind of witch (the Old Testament identifies many different kinds of witchcraft, the peculiarities of which are mostly forgotten).
The article reads:
"The solar energy division, which employs about 3,000 people, lost around 1 billion euros ($1.3 billion) last year."
That is the usual ./ do-it-yourself interpretation of the Bible. First of all, the original Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgata) is based on the Greek one and it is known to be somewhat imprecise for the Old Testament, not only because it is a translation of a translation, but also because Jerome did not like literal translations ("non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu" as he wrote). However, while the word is a little obscure, there is no doubt that the original Hebrew word is a feminine term related to kashaf (sorcerer, masculine) and keshef (sorcery), so the most probable translation is sorcerer (or witch, less likely poisoner).
It must be noted that it is not an order to kill witches, but an order to not use their services and so to not let them live (to not sustain their life).
I'd be more impressed with OpenBSD not being hacked, and even that is essentially just an init process and sshd.
At the Pwn2Own 2008 contest Ubuntu was undefeated, and it was thew first and last time a Linux based OS was present at the contest. Well, if you don't include Android and Chrome OS.
Well, but the oil lobby never lobbied to sell their oil, they do not need to. They actually lobby to get more oil/gas and to leave less oil/gas to the competition (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya wars etc.). Heck, more funds for green power companies means less competition in the oil extraction business, so the only guys who are screwed by this situation are those from the nuclear power lobby. Those cannot compete with the oil and green lobbies.
...and sorry for the grammatical errors, I typed that post not too carefully.
I can't believe that a company in 2013 would have the audacity to think it can still get away with bundling its own browser with its OS! You'd never see this sort of behavior out of more responsible corporations like Apple.
Not again this garbage! And even modded insightful! This is a monopoly leverage case, so you need two things:
/. is saying how much M$ is good now, but this is getting ridiculous: a large corporation thinks they can get away with mocking a court (ooh, we're sorry, it was just a technical error, you know) and the first post is this anonymous garbage? Enough.
1) a monopoly
2)a product that you force on the users of your monopoly (a.k.a. the leverage)
Neither Apple nor Google are leveraging a monopoly:
1)Apple has not a monopoly , iPhones, iPads, iMacs and MacBooks do not constitute a monopoly in their respective markets.
2)Android is not sell by Google, but by the hardware producers (and among them, Google), so it never will be a monopolist.
I know that the latest trend on
Breakdown of Nokia smartphone sales, last quarter of 2012:
*2.2m Symbian OS
*4.4m WP 7 + WP 8
*9.3m S40 full touch
total: 15.9m smartphones [1]
Windows Phone (7 and 8) makes up about a quarter of their total smartphone sales. The last quarter of 2011, they sold 19.6m smartphones, and the last quarter of 2010 28.3m, I can't see how 4.4m WP can max out their industrial capacity.
This is what driving Nokia smartphone sales, it isn't a WP and it entered production a few months ago.
Exactly right on my post unixisc.
Windows Phone right now has sold out the manufacturing capacity of Nokia on the Lumia [...]
That's because the manufacturing capacity of Nokia is primary supporting their best selling devices: Symbian smartphones.
You do realise their annual reports are broken down into a little more detail than that right? You can see plain as day exactly how much Xbox brings in compared to Windows Phone[...]
The break down is about revenues, I was clearly talking about profits. I know that very well, in facts to me it's pretty clear that if the console business adds up to 70-80% of total division revenues and the division loses money (4 billions since 2002, this figure lacks the original Xbox launch and development cost, which is usually estimated at 1-2 billion more), then the console business must not be that profitable.
That's because while some don't like the patent system at large, many, I'd say the majority, find the software patent system despicable. This article is about the latter.
Moreover this is a friendly reminder for all those who think that the Xbox/Xbox 360 makes money: the royalties from mobile system patents are collected by the EDD, those, and not the Xbox, counterbalance the losses of Windows Phone.
Where does it say that they measured Google search results? RTFA or at least their about page before defending poor little M$.
I think it's more than a bit disingenuous because the video has this person's eyes superimposed over your e-mail while mischievous music plays in the background. We all know that it's not a person reading the e-mails, it's software doing latent semantic indexing or some such algorithm.
Do you really believe that Google NEVER assigns a human set of eyes to review emails - even when they're trying to better tune their ad-targeting algorithms?
It's much easier and more efficient to use test case emails than random real emails for algorithm tuning.
So because some people build bad or incomplete models, economics somehow does not use the scientific method? Curious logic you have there. Do you think that Rutherford model of the atom wasn't science just because it was later proven to be a bad model?
The Rutherford model isn't a bad model, neither the Dalton's model was bad, but better models happened as science advanced. The problem here is that these so called economic models aren't based on hard science.
Science is a PROCESS of putting forth a hypothesis and then a model to explain that hypothesis and then gathering evidence to support or refute that model
This is the great misconception: the model must not explain anything, it should be just a matter of fact, a mathematical consequence of the hard science behind the hypothesis. The point here is that there is no natural law behind economics, or if there is one, it is so distant from our current knowledge, that we need a century or two of psychiatry, psychology and sociology advancements prior to begin to just think about it. Behind these so called models there is just a bit of bad statistics, there is no more science in economics than in someone trying to predict what nation will win the 2018 FIFA World Cup, basing his "study" on statistics about the past World Cups.
[...]they're just models and that's a fact that people often lose sight of[...]
I'd say that's what their proponents almost always lose sight of. "People" just believe what the experts say.
Like all models, they have particular domains of applicability
In this case, the domain of dreams. When you elaborate a model, the most important thing is to determine its accuracy, that is its applicability. If you elaborate a wonderfully thought model, but fail to ascertain when it is applicable, and what is its accuracy (error variances, MSE etc.) you did nothing useful, really nothing. But economists do not want to be labelled as people who didn't achieve anything, so they skip the talk about applicability.
Their weaknesses are also their strength
It is a quote from 1984, isn't it?
Debate? You see, that is the problem. Climate change is an event, like earthquakes, the sun rising, and cargo ships running into a pier. It is not like a gun control debate or an abortion debate where opinions matter. Climate change simply happens.
True, now tell that to all those lunatics that say it is human made for certain, and never debate (oh well, there should be a debate) how to deal with a natural climate shift, but just say we must do this or that to prevent it (like it was assured that we can prevent it).
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The same reason goes for all those mediocre scientists (the vast majority of them) who could never dream of topping the bill if there wasn't some heavy controversial and popularized debate like this. If there is no debate, it is because every thing that happens is dismissed as "it's all according to the models", yeah, how could it be differently? There are literally thousands of different models, predicting all and its contrary. But, yes, it is an event and there must be no debate, because it is certain and all according to the models. Mind you, I believe (that's the correct term) that there is a climate change, but everything beyond that is just to early to call.
Dark matter is not an invented concept, it is a name for something we observe.
It is as observed as Aether or the cosmological constant...
I don't see what's deceptive about it. You either contribute or you don't; they did.
They also contributed a lot of open standards and that's one of the most evil thing they did (and still do).
Ever heard of qbasic and strings?
that division had a few other things as well that were proven money losers. the x-box had the best attach rate for games for many years now
But that division has/had other things that were proven money grabbers: the EDD division collects royalties from mobile devices (Android phone/tablet makers, among others), Office for Mac (until 2010), actual devices (mice, keyboards). The division has lost a couple of billions since 2001, however this figure does not include the original Xbox development costs (the EDD was founded just prior the Xbox launch), so the actual losses could be even a billion or two more.