The people you meet in college are similar to goodwill in accounting.
At an elite school you will live and study with incredibly intelligent and ambitious students who are already beginning to have an impact in their fields before they get their BS/PhD. Your professors will include Nobel laureates who may well have invented your field of study. Together they will shape your approach to your studies and your career. Of course, that's elite in science/technology, not "elite" as defined by Minerva's PR firm.
My apologies: I used the CS definition when referring to Parent's using computer programming as an analogy: "This is true for your analogy as well". For the discussion about biology I just said quantifiable, but there are a bunch of different ways to approach complexity in biological systems, some rigourous, some not, and even Mr. Complexity and Self Organization Himself (Kauffman) would use different ones depending on the problem he is currently looking at. For quantum criticality, the one wikipedia gives for physical systems: "complexity is a measure of the probability of the state vector of the system" is a good start. For systems biology or genetics, an information theory approach would be better.
We're pretty good at the microscopic (observable with an optical microscope) level. At the level Kauffmann is studying, the models he is using have thus far been rife with inaccuracies and pretty much incapable of making useful predictions of actual physical behavior. I think this paper is really at risk of being GIGO until they back it up observations that haven't already been predicted by the assumptions/fudge factors they built into their model.
While these biological phenomenon may appear difficult for some people to comprehend, they aren't really all that complex at all.
Really? So you can predict how proteins fold? Which drug candidates will interact with which proteins and what effects they will have? How about just modeling the interaction of a protein and water?
These all fall under NP-complete, which is a pretty much the epitome of complexity.
No, complexity is not subjective.
You are just using a very casual definition for complexity in a discussion for which there is a much more precise definition. In this case, complexity is a quantifiable property of physical systems.
This is true for your analogy as well: in CS one definition for complexity is the number of steps that it takes to solve an instance of the problem as a function of the size of the input.
Read the wiki and try again.
The idea is to point out how easy it is to make a gun.
If it is so easy that anyone can do it in their own home, what's the point of the draconian gun control restrictions that progressives want?
It's even easier to make car bombs or ricin in your own home: no special milling equipment required. Laws should attempt to balance safety against liberty, not newsworthiness against DIYability.
You are right, Conservatives are very consistent about government control: So long as it feels like "Us" controlling "Them", they are for it. Control over abortions, control over marriage, control over brown people...
Call the bank and ask for their "agent of service", This is the first step you take when you sue a corporation: find out the lawyer you need to send the paperwork to. Not that you will actually be suing them, but if anyone can light a fire under the bank's IT staff it's their lawyer.
I reported to a small non-profit that their list of email addresses had leaked. I knew this because I used a unique address when registering with the site and I later started getting SPAM at that address.
Most likely, the non-profit sold your email address (along with the rest of their list), leading to embarrassment all around when you contacted them about the spam.
It is generally well established that correspondence between two individuals is private and that for one of the parties to share that correspondence it is considered appropriate to ask the other for permission prior to sharing.
Isn't that consideration based on the assumption that the individuals have a long term private relationship, something that would lead to an expectation of privacy? Letters to a casual acquaintance wouldn't fall under that rule, would they? How about selfies sent by someone being flirtatious with someone they don't know very well yet?
Pick your definition for empiricism. In modern science (my experience is protein structure prediction) it involves calculating average parameters from large datasets (empirical: CHARMM, AMBER) as opposed to generating them ab initio (theoretical: Hartree-Fock). It certainly doesn't involve cherry picking anecdotes from websites that hawk anti-aging supplements.
tend to prefer empiricism and general pattern-recognition to theory-directed research because in the area of health it is so fraught with false positives, statistical failures, presuppositions and downright fraud due to industry influence.
So your answer to the problems of false positives and statistical failures are studies where n = 1.
The wrong conclusion was drawn from this observational study. Saunas are very stressful. People who are weak can not tolerate many saunas and therefore avoid them. Healthy people don't have a problem with them and take more of them.
Article is firewalled and the abstract doesn't speculate on mechanism, but discussion centers on the higher heart rate. So it might well be related to the benefits seen from exercise.
How do you establish the control group: people who could keep running but choose not to? Otherwise you are conflating the benefits of not being at risk for arthritis, tendinosis, vertabrae/disk issuses, torn meniscus, etc. with the benefits of exercise.
Tangential but relevant: You take a picture and send it to someone. Or write a letter and send it to someone. What conditions have to be met before there is a legal expectation of confidentiality for that someone? Written contract? Verbal contract? Can just having an intimate relationship create the contract? Can the nature of the picture/letter alone create that contract?
Can someone with a legal background connect the dots for me?
And we're not talking about those painful last 5 years where you can't do anything, but 5 years of vitality to your productive mid-life.
Cite? I'm genuinely curious.
The trick is finding research that is based on intervention, not just observation. For example: studies of runners. People who are still running at age 55+ have been intensively selected by their joints over the years, many people will have experienced knee/hip/ankle/back problems well before that age and quit. How do you establish the control group: people who could keep running but choose not to? Otherwise you are conflating the benefits of not being at risk for arthritis, tendinosis, vertabrae/disk issuses, torn meniscus, etc. with the benefits of exercise.
You are aiming at the wrong target. It's not some sort of zero sum game where spending more on physician samples or TV ads means spending less on R&D. Each dollar spent on ads more than pays for itself in extra revenue. And the system doesn't put HR, advertisers, and sales people above R&D - their jobs are all just as short lived these days in pharma. If you are going to blame anyone blame the investors - every free dollar goes to stock buybacks, not advertising.
Anyway, I don't really see the congress and the senate directing the NIH on which drug candidates to pursue and which congressional districts to spend the money in working much more efficiently.
Well, the money end of drug development (Pharma) went through massive layoffs and shrinkage during Bush II the Lesser's reign. I think more people were laid off than actually employed in Pharma at any one time (and no, quite a lot of them did not find further research jobs).
Slashdot Mirror
The people you meet in college are similar to goodwill in accounting.
At an elite school you will live and study with incredibly intelligent and ambitious students who are already beginning to have an impact in their fields before they get their BS/PhD. Your professors will include Nobel laureates who may well have invented your field of study. Together they will shape your approach to your studies and your career. Of course, that's elite in science/technology, not "elite" as defined by Minerva's PR firm.
My apologies: I used the CS definition when referring to Parent's using computer programming as an analogy: "This is true for your analogy as well". For the discussion about biology I just said quantifiable, but there are a bunch of different ways to approach complexity in biological systems, some rigourous, some not, and even Mr. Complexity and Self Organization Himself (Kauffman) would use different ones depending on the problem he is currently looking at. For quantum criticality, the one wikipedia gives for physical systems: "complexity is a measure of the probability of the state vector of the system" is a good start. For systems biology or genetics, an information theory approach would be better.
We're pretty good at the microscopic (observable with an optical microscope) level. At the level Kauffmann is studying, the models he is using have thus far been rife with inaccuracies and pretty much incapable of making useful predictions of actual physical behavior. I think this paper is really at risk of being GIGO until they back it up observations that haven't already been predicted by the assumptions/fudge factors they built into their model.
While these biological phenomenon may appear difficult for some people to comprehend, they aren't really all that complex at all.
Really? So you can predict how proteins fold? Which drug candidates will interact with which proteins and what effects they will have? How about just modeling the interaction of a protein and water? These all fall under NP-complete, which is a pretty much the epitome of complexity.
No, complexity is not subjective. You are just using a very casual definition for complexity in a discussion for which there is a much more precise definition. In this case, complexity is a quantifiable property of physical systems. This is true for your analogy as well: in CS one definition for complexity is the number of steps that it takes to solve an instance of the problem as a function of the size of the input. Read the wiki and try again.
So, you haven't watched the movie at all, but you already have an opinion.
The trailer doesn't exactly leave much out.
The idea is to point out how easy it is to make a gun. If it is so easy that anyone can do it in their own home, what's the point of the draconian gun control restrictions that progressives want?
It's even easier to make car bombs or ricin in your own home: no special milling equipment required. Laws should attempt to balance safety against liberty, not newsworthiness against DIYability.
You are right, Conservatives are very consistent about government control: So long as it feels like "Us" controlling "Them", they are for it. Control over abortions, control over marriage, control over brown people ...
But don't worry nothing will happen for 10 or more years
People have been talking about self cleaning paint made from TiO2 suspended in perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane for almost 10 years. Should we worry?
shift national priorities towards creating robust, fault-tolerant, systems that render offensive tools ineffective
Sounds like the first bullet point for a series of hugely profitable, multi-generational government contracts, doncha think?
Call the bank and ask for their "agent of service", This is the first step you take when you sue a corporation: find out the lawyer you need to send the paperwork to. Not that you will actually be suing them, but if anyone can light a fire under the bank's IT staff it's their lawyer.
In my experience, it won't.
I reported to a small non-profit that their list of email addresses had leaked. I knew this because I used a unique address when registering with the site and I later started getting SPAM at that address.
Most likely, the non-profit sold your email address (along with the rest of their list), leading to embarrassment all around when you contacted them about the spam.
It is generally well established that correspondence between two individuals is private and that for one of the parties to share that correspondence it is considered appropriate to ask the other for permission prior to sharing.
Isn't that consideration based on the assumption that the individuals have a long term private relationship, something that would lead to an expectation of privacy? Letters to a casual acquaintance wouldn't fall under that rule, would they? How about selfies sent by someone being flirtatious with someone they don't know very well yet?
Pick your definition for empiricism. In modern science (my experience is protein structure prediction) it involves calculating average parameters from large datasets (empirical: CHARMM, AMBER) as opposed to generating them ab initio (theoretical: Hartree-Fock). It certainly doesn't involve cherry picking anecdotes from websites that hawk anti-aging supplements.
Yes really. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence.
tend to prefer empiricism and general pattern-recognition to theory-directed research because in the area of health it is so fraught with false positives, statistical failures, presuppositions and downright fraud due to industry influence.
So your answer to the problems of false positives and statistical failures are studies where n = 1.
Ok.
The wrong conclusion was drawn from this observational study. Saunas are very stressful. People who are weak can not tolerate many saunas and therefore avoid them. Healthy people don't have a problem with them and take more of them.
Meanwhile, in the actual article:
After adjustment for CVD risk factors ...
Article is firewalled and the abstract doesn't speculate on mechanism, but discussion centers on the higher heart rate. So it might well be related to the benefits seen from exercise.
Completely missed the point of my post:
How do you establish the control group: people who could keep running but choose not to? Otherwise you are conflating the benefits of not being at risk for arthritis, tendinosis, vertabrae/disk issuses, torn meniscus, etc. with the benefits of exercise.
It's just as true for weight training.
Plus: anecdotes?
Really?
Can someone with a legal background connect the dots for me?
I'm sure the oily fish they eat helps a lot too.
Here we go again - confusing correlation with a causal relationship.
And we're not talking about those painful last 5 years where you can't do anything, but 5 years of vitality to your productive mid-life.
Cite? I'm genuinely curious. The trick is finding research that is based on intervention, not just observation. For example: studies of runners. People who are still running at age 55+ have been intensively selected by their joints over the years, many people will have experienced knee/hip/ankle/back problems well before that age and quit. How do you establish the control group: people who could keep running but choose not to? Otherwise you are conflating the benefits of not being at risk for arthritis, tendinosis, vertabrae/disk issuses, torn meniscus, etc. with the benefits of exercise.
10 year lease on each TLD. 9 years in each goes to public auction which determines the rate for the next 10 year lease.
So then you just have to send copies of your one time pads to everyone you want to have conversations with. What could go wrong?
You are aiming at the wrong target. It's not some sort of zero sum game where spending more on physician samples or TV ads means spending less on R&D. Each dollar spent on ads more than pays for itself in extra revenue. And the system doesn't put HR, advertisers, and sales people above R&D - their jobs are all just as short lived these days in pharma. If you are going to blame anyone blame the investors - every free dollar goes to stock buybacks, not advertising. Anyway, I don't really see the congress and the senate directing the NIH on which drug candidates to pursue and which congressional districts to spend the money in working much more efficiently.
Well, the money end of drug development (Pharma) went through massive layoffs and shrinkage during Bush II the Lesser's reign. I think more people were laid off than actually employed in Pharma at any one time (and no, quite a lot of them did not find further research jobs).