It may not be possible, but exposure to bright light in the morning can help a lot - it's best if it's sunlight or at least a fair solar spectrum approximation. The older you are the brighter the light needs to be (due to decrease of eye transmission with age).
Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side...
Leaving intentional clicks to unknown locations aside, it hasn't been that long since it's been reasonably easy to be free of those endless rapidly spawning popups or the pop-up viruses installed by a drive-by. Without a law like this, how many little-old ladies would we have had to throw in prison under a strict per-decision interpretation for calling in the horrible things on their computer.
Rule 34 by Stross (yes, it's in reference to that Rule 34) has some interesting side content about the speculative future of a maker community. Printers and feedstock are relatively common, but most printers have embedded DRM related to IP purchase of the models.
With the current legal/IP trend it's a reasonable speculation as many companies would (with some justification) fear a consumer who could print physical devices as easily as they illegally download an MP3. So, from that perspective, clearly anyone with a DRM free printer has got to be some sort of criminal (yeah, yeah, there's that whole infringer/criminal thing, whatever).
Not dye-sub for home? They're getting into reasonable consumer priced ranges too (not like they used to bee). I don't know which has better archival color, though, and the original question is framed in context of heirlooms.
I do mine at Costco too. Although an alternative splurge would be mpix who have had a great reputation (although it's been a while since I did anything with them) and allow you a decent choice of photo papers (including true B&W and metallic. Metallic is worth it if you want some pop on your chromes or want to show off the full dynamic range of your captured light (I saw a sunset from somewhere like Zion Natl. Park displayed with rheostat controlled spots on metallic paper; it was almost like you were watching dusk come on)).
Only a little bit. The solar spectrum from earth and space are extremely well known. A space based look is definatly the most useful, but accounting for our own atmosphere isn't all that hard.
A step up from that would be to embed a well trained machine in a simple lab on a chip. Print a few million and package them with a finger lance. If the LED turns red, then you foot your kid to a WHO clinic with proof in your pocket that you need to be at the front of the line. Not to mention the usefulness something like this would have at the same WHO clinic.
... ePub drm can be stripped away instantly (I used some promotional credit to acquire a DRM encumbered epub and stripped the DRM in short order).
Which is illegal under DMCA (even though there is plenty of court precedence to probably favor a ruling of fair use (IANAL)). I applaud you for your willingness to be a court test case (why don't you forward the above post to the publisher of the DRM content along with your name, address, and lawyer's contact info). As for me, I'll back you up by continuing financial support for the EFF (I'm willing to bet they'd help you out with lawyers if you don't already have one, or if you already do, there will be some briefs coming in on your side), and continuing my boycott of DRM books. I don't suppose you could initiate a kickstarter program for a lawsuit not yet brought can you?
I also am thrilled by the news that Tor has joined up with the Baen philosophy, and I hope their corporate overlords allow it to progress. The fact that it is yet another sci-fi publisher which has adopted this strategy should not be lost on anyone.
Nope - IP generated from public money still belongs to the researcher/institution. If a funded non-government researcher writes a paper he/she holds the copyright (or more likely their institution under work for hire) while if a government institution does the same, the document is automatically public domain. Same goes for patents to an extent (in some cases government researchers can still get partial royalties off of patents, but the government research institutes are notorious for doing all the ground work in a field and letting someone else swoop in for the patent).
Congress (in the US) is very gently easing access to papers who's research was funded by public money. It's slow, and far more limited than it should be, but it's possible that we see governmental action crack this nut wide open - retroactively even.
You're missing the point of impact factors. It's merely a representation of the average times any given article from the preceding two years has been cited in the current year. The values change all the time.
So, we know that if a good paper gets published somewhere that people can find, it gets cited. If good authors (presumably Harvard has some of these) make a concerted effort to move to a different journal other than the typical Journal of discipline subject, then the new journal is going to get a lot of citations over the next two years; raising its impact while the old journal plummets. (Actually, the new journal will skyrocket, and the old one will gradually taper as it is forced to accept less stellar papers to maintain publishing quantities).
Now where it gets interesting is when the Society of discipline subject, who sold their Journal to the bundle publisher for whatever reason, starts to see their Society's Journal impact dropping (along with some of their revenue). At this point there will either be a call to membership to publish in the main Journal, or a call from membership to retrieve their Journal from the bundle people. This fight will probably go both ways, and different societies will have different end points. The options available will also vary. Some societies will have made a complete sale of their journal and be out of luck, others may be able to renegotiate publishing arrangements. Journals most threatened are those with no society behind it.
Also, in my experience you can't just trade in five papers for two in the superstar journal realm (e.g. journals with double digit factors like science or nature which are usually around 30). Also, many superstar articles never make it to a general audience journal like Science or Nature. If a scientist really wants to impress someone with their publishing record, then they should report five and ten year impacts of their individual articles - not their neighbors.
Next you're going to tell me that the Great Old Ones were behind the great old Cadbury egg recipe and not this new healthier (only by relative measurement) formulation and size. But, why would they have been interested in fattening us up?
You should have been counting up, the article already contains the most relevant counter-point: "Critics counter that the method has not yet been proven effective for differentiating between biological and non-biological processes on Earth so it's premature to draw any conclusions."
Of course, the writer of the article should have read the original paper and at least pointed out the control scheme utilized within the mathematical analysis.
When a number of terrestrial time series, known to be biological or non-biological, were added to the set of LR experiments, the biological time series automatically sorted with the LR active experiments, and the non-biological time series sorted with the LR controls, forming two distinct clusters on the basis of the complexity variables.
Finally, one should ask themselves if they trust a bunch of mathematicians who turn out phrases like: "In mathematical terms, the Euclidean distance between the centroids of the two clusters was significantly larger than the intra-cluster distances between any members of either cluster." Any English major could tell you what kind of cluster that sentence is! If that's the way they write, one has to wonder about their expertise in detecting live... it takes one to know one after all.;)
Cute - thanks. Yeah, definately g (alt-230)g [micrograms]. And I'm not sure why it goes through as something other than extended ascii. Perhaps that's slashdot's text entry system, or maybe it's higher up in Firefox...
And of course the most important question of them all: do Anonymous Cowards know the difference between amalgamated metals and organometallic compounds?
Only second to the question of how hard can it be to find this stuff?
Numerous studies have demonstrated a positive correlation between the number of dental amalgam restorations or surfaces and urine mercury concentrations in non-occupationally exposed individuals. Mean urine mercury concentrations (HgU) were less than 2 g Hg/L in most surveys of the general population that were published since the beginning of 1996. Furthermore, approximately 95% of the study participants had HgU at or below the pre-1996 WHO estimate of approximately 4-5 g Hg/L.
...
Current occupational exposure guidelines recommend that the HgU of workers not exceed the Biological Exposure Index of 35 g Hg/L
Not necessarily, depending on implementation it could also be considered derivative work from the table of contents or structure of the original text. Remember that even paraphrasing can be copyright violation (although not always). If I take a paragraph of someone's work, reword it, and pass it off as my own (or as a public domain work), that is infringement. Also remember that style, and other artistic considerations can also be protected work. The key to this case will be in the method of "alignment."
Am I foolish for attempting to clarify another persons point on slashdot? (quite likely) Or was it for attempting to objectively looking at something from an alternate position?
You link appears to fail to address the point I mentioned regarding application of the scientific method in a controlled experiment however. There's plenty of observational data from within our own system (such as the newt story with regional differences in coevolved toxin/resistance to TTX), but I didn't see any controlled experiments (e.g. in region 1 we force random mating and in region 2 we allow preferential mating).
I'd also like to point out that I've also not stated what my position is, although you seem to have drawn conclusions about that anyway. Would you say that your verbal semantic fluency is on par with your apparent reading comprehension? Or is it only written discussions you have trouble with? You certainly aren't alone however. Many people in a debate (particularly this one) get so caught up shouting their own position that they fail to listen to what another side might be saying. The worst case is when both sides reach this point. I know I've fallen within this communication pitfall in the past (and will likely do so again - it's related to human nature after all).
Nothing contrived here. No general lumping of other tools like mathematics, engineering, logic, various analytical techniques (e.g. PCR, peptide mapping, carbon dating, etc...), into the parent term of science either.
Slashdot Mirror
It may not be possible, but exposure to bright light in the morning can help a lot - it's best if it's sunlight or at least a fair solar spectrum approximation. The older you are the brighter the light needs to be (due to decrease of eye transmission with age).
And here I thought it was staying up late (and eating snacks) while doing things online with friends in a different time zone.
You mean like a paper screen, or a wind screen, smoke screen, genetic screen, mechanical screen, or naval screen?
Considering how many links people click on over the course of the day, with hardly any idea (implicitly or explicitly) of what's going to be found on the other side...
Leaving intentional clicks to unknown locations aside, it hasn't been that long since it's been reasonably easy to be free of those endless rapidly spawning popups or the pop-up viruses installed by a drive-by. Without a law like this, how many little-old ladies would we have had to throw in prison under a strict per-decision interpretation for calling in the horrible things on their computer.
Rule 34 by Stross (yes, it's in reference to that Rule 34) has some interesting side content about the speculative future of a maker community. Printers and feedstock are relatively common, but most printers have embedded DRM related to IP purchase of the models.
With the current legal/IP trend it's a reasonable speculation as many companies would (with some justification) fear a consumer who could print physical devices as easily as they illegally download an MP3. So, from that perspective, clearly anyone with a DRM free printer has got to be some sort of criminal (yeah, yeah, there's that whole infringer/criminal thing, whatever).
Not dye-sub for home? They're getting into reasonable consumer priced ranges too (not like they used to bee). I don't know which has better archival color, though, and the original question is framed in context of heirlooms.
I do mine at Costco too. Although an alternative splurge would be mpix who have had a great reputation (although it's been a while since I did anything with them) and allow you a decent choice of photo papers (including true B&W and metallic. Metallic is worth it if you want some pop on your chromes or want to show off the full dynamic range of your captured light (I saw a sunset from somewhere like Zion Natl. Park displayed with rheostat controlled spots on metallic paper; it was almost like you were watching dusk come on)).
Only a little bit. The solar spectrum from earth and space are extremely well known. A space based look is definatly the most useful, but accounting for our own atmosphere isn't all that hard.
A step up from that would be to embed a well trained machine in a simple lab on a chip. Print a few million and package them with a finger lance. If the LED turns red, then you foot your kid to a WHO clinic with proof in your pocket that you need to be at the front of the line. Not to mention the usefulness something like this would have at the same WHO clinic.
Quite right! And most business class software will come with license management features - makes it dead easy compared to something like petty cash.
Yeah, the average person is going to think that's a statue you'd find in a garden doing something amusing.
... ePub drm can be stripped away instantly (I used some promotional credit to acquire a DRM encumbered epub and stripped the DRM in short order).
Which is illegal under DMCA (even though there is plenty of court precedence to probably favor a ruling of fair use (IANAL)). I applaud you for your willingness to be a court test case (why don't you forward the above post to the publisher of the DRM content along with your name, address, and lawyer's contact info). As for me, I'll back you up by continuing financial support for the EFF (I'm willing to bet they'd help you out with lawyers if you don't already have one, or if you already do, there will be some briefs coming in on your side), and continuing my boycott of DRM books. I don't suppose you could initiate a kickstarter program for a lawsuit not yet brought can you?
I also am thrilled by the news that Tor has joined up with the Baen philosophy, and I hope their corporate overlords allow it to progress. The fact that it is yet another sci-fi publisher which has adopted this strategy should not be lost on anyone.
Think of the children!
Nope - IP generated from public money still belongs to the researcher/institution. If a funded non-government researcher writes a paper he/she holds the copyright (or more likely their institution under work for hire) while if a government institution does the same, the document is automatically public domain. Same goes for patents to an extent (in some cases government researchers can still get partial royalties off of patents, but the government research institutes are notorious for doing all the ground work in a field and letting someone else swoop in for the patent).
Congress (in the US) is very gently easing access to papers who's research was funded by public money. It's slow, and far more limited than it should be, but it's possible that we see governmental action crack this nut wide open - retroactively even.
You're missing the point of impact factors. It's merely a representation of the average times any given article from the preceding two years has been cited in the current year. The values change all the time.
So, we know that if a good paper gets published somewhere that people can find, it gets cited. If good authors (presumably Harvard has some of these) make a concerted effort to move to a different journal other than the typical Journal of discipline subject, then the new journal is going to get a lot of citations over the next two years; raising its impact while the old journal plummets. (Actually, the new journal will skyrocket, and the old one will gradually taper as it is forced to accept less stellar papers to maintain publishing quantities).
Now where it gets interesting is when the Society of discipline subject, who sold their Journal to the bundle publisher for whatever reason, starts to see their Society's Journal impact dropping (along with some of their revenue). At this point there will either be a call to membership to publish in the main Journal, or a call from membership to retrieve their Journal from the bundle people. This fight will probably go both ways, and different societies will have different end points. The options available will also vary. Some societies will have made a complete sale of their journal and be out of luck, others may be able to renegotiate publishing arrangements. Journals most threatened are those with no society behind it.
Also, in my experience you can't just trade in five papers for two in the superstar journal realm (e.g. journals with double digit factors like science or nature which are usually around 30). Also, many superstar articles never make it to a general audience journal like Science or Nature. If a scientist really wants to impress someone with their publishing record, then they should report five and ten year impacts of their individual articles - not their neighbors.
Next you're going to tell me that the Great Old Ones were behind the great old Cadbury egg recipe and not this new healthier (only by relative measurement) formulation and size. But, why would they have been interested in fattening us up?
Oh no! A typo! I'll have to take the colonel's way out.
On another note, in light of the comments thus far, it appears that the winking-face emoticon doesn't mean what I think it means.
You should have been counting up, the article already contains the most relevant counter-point: "Critics counter that the method has not yet been proven effective for differentiating between biological and non-biological processes on Earth so it's premature to draw any conclusions."
Of course, the writer of the article should have read the original paper and at least pointed out the control scheme utilized within the mathematical analysis.
Finally, one should ask themselves if they trust a bunch of mathematicians who turn out phrases like: "In mathematical terms, the Euclidean distance between the centroids of the two clusters was significantly larger than the intra-cluster distances between any members of either cluster." Any English major could tell you what kind of cluster that sentence is! If that's the way they write, one has to wonder about their expertise in detecting live... it takes one to know one after all. ;)
You can always burst out in song, answer truthfully, and get off with just a laugh: "I like ... and can not lie."
Cute - thanks. Yeah, definately g (alt-230)g [micrograms]. And I'm not sure why it goes through as something other than extended ascii. Perhaps that's slashdot's text entry system, or maybe it's higher up in Firefox...
And of course the most important question of them all: do Anonymous Cowards know the difference between amalgamated metals and organometallic compounds?
Only second to the question of how hard can it be to find this stuff?
Not necessarily, depending on implementation it could also be considered derivative work from the table of contents or structure of the original text. Remember that even paraphrasing can be copyright violation (although not always). If I take a paragraph of someone's work, reword it, and pass it off as my own (or as a public domain work), that is infringement. Also remember that style, and other artistic considerations can also be protected work. The key to this case will be in the method of "alignment."
Am I foolish for attempting to clarify another persons point on slashdot? (quite likely) Or was it for attempting to objectively looking at something from an alternate position?
You link appears to fail to address the point I mentioned regarding application of the scientific method in a controlled experiment however. There's plenty of observational data from within our own system (such as the newt story with regional differences in coevolved toxin/resistance to TTX), but I didn't see any controlled experiments (e.g. in region 1 we force random mating and in region 2 we allow preferential mating).
I'd also like to point out that I've also not stated what my position is, although you seem to have drawn conclusions about that anyway. Would you say that your verbal semantic fluency is on par with your apparent reading comprehension? Or is it only written discussions you have trouble with? You certainly aren't alone however. Many people in a debate (particularly this one) get so caught up shouting their own position that they fail to listen to what another side might be saying. The worst case is when both sides reach this point. I know I've fallen within this communication pitfall in the past (and will likely do so again - it's related to human nature after all).
Nothing contrived here. No general lumping of other tools like mathematics, engineering, logic, various analytical techniques (e.g. PCR, peptide mapping, carbon dating, etc...), into the parent term of science either.
Science (see 3a) in the strictest sense requires adherence to the scientific method.