He's cobbling together whatever technologies he can get his hands on and then shamelessly pimping^H^H^H^H^H^H^H self promoting whatever his latest project is regardless of merit.
1. That price is using huge discounts with $400 off $1000 coupons and such, so you aren't really comparing similar things. For a better comparison, dell.com has this: 2.4GHz celeron D, 40GB HD, 256MB ram, 48x cdrom, 15" flat-screen, no firewire for $498. Mini doesn't look so bad in this case.
2. Here's a comparison of sizes using famous people: your dell, the mini.
First, Blue Gene's aren't yet up to the task of true de novo protein folding simulation (and there is debate about when/if we'll be able to actually do that with the knowledge we have now). Molecular interaction calculations on the other hand, aren't nearly so challenging, and many can be done in real-time (there are obviously many caveats to that, but...).
Second and more importantly, that isn't what this does. This setup is mainly to help in teaching about molecular interactions by providing an enhanced tactile environment. Lots of people learn better when they can actually touch models. This is a system that takes these models and adds a layer of virtual reality on top of them. So not only can you play with a model of your favorite protein..feel it, turn it around in your hands, etc etc, but now you can have a computer superimpose various types of information on that model. Show the structure of any residue's sidechain, show the electrostatic potential around any part of the protein, show how a small molecule docks inside a protein, etc etc. All types of information that has been represented by static pictures, then pre-rendered movies, then interactive movies, are now able to be demonstrated in an even more intuitive system.
-Ted And let me just say how cool it was to click on a Slashdot story that has one of my phd committee members (Art Olson) in it!
Mavericks is a gay bar in Dallas. It's owned by a group with lots of them all over the country: Cavaliers in Cleveland, Kings in Sacramento, Bucks in Milwaukee, Pacers in Indianapolis, Spurs in San Antonio, Heat in Miami, Magic in Orlando.
States rights are non existent, and have been for some [time]....Try to have your state lower the drinking age to 19,
Ok, I'll bite. Bullshit.
States rights exist, in some kind of balance with federal rights (granted, the balance may not please you, but that's a far from cry from non-existence). Any state has the right to lower the drinking age. They will lose some federal transportation funding if they do so, but they can do so.
A simple perusal of state law codes should prove the existence widely varying statutes.
With regards to the SC decision, since the majority's logic was based on the 8th amendment, it's pretty clear that this is a federal issue (see the 10th amendment). (and, just so we are clear, the decision brought us out of the glorious company of China, the Congo, Iran, Pakistan as the only countries to actively execute juveniles.)
Cordelia's birthday cake has Wonderwoman on it. This is ironic since Charisma Carpenter has said that she wants to play Wonderwoman in the movie version.
I have one of those SA8000HD's from cox, as well as a tivo sitting on a non-hd set. I probably swear at the 8000HD weekly about how inferior it is to tivo.
Positives for the 8000HD:
Two tuners.
High-Def is pretty.
Negatives:
As you mentioned, selecting a currently recording show in the 'now playing' list puts you in at real-time, not at the beginning of the show. Why would I ever want that? That is just head-up-your-ass stupid design.
Fast-forwarding or rewinding through a show doesn't have any kind of jump feature, like tivo's 15 minute tick marks. This sucks balls. Especially for any long recording (like say, any sports).
The guide on the PVR can't be customized to only show channels you get, or only ones you want to see. So going from the HD channels in the 700s to normal cable means you have to page down through a few hundred channels I couldn't watch if i wanted to. Again, just rushed, poorly thought out design.
Recordings sometimes just don't record. I've had numerous occasions where a show i've scheduled just fails for no reason. Even more bewildering, is that the guide says it is recording...it just never appears in the now showing list. I've had a tivo for about 4 years now, and that's *never* happened to me.
Our first 8000HD died after 4 months of use. That is just unacceptable. Maybe we just got a bum one...but it reflects badly when our series 2 tivo has been going strong for 2.5 years now.
The guide data has been wrong far, far more than the tivo's has. Granted this is more a cox problem than a 8000HD problem per se, but since cox is responsible for the whole arrangement, it's their mess.
Season pass management is far, far better on tivo.
Don't even get me started on the remote.
It really does feel like a rushed, still-in-beta product. It turns what should be a life-simplifying process into an aggravating ordeal. I'll be first in line once tivo gets a HD setup going (come on cablecard 2.0). They are one of those companies (like apple) who realizes that a well engineered product really matters.
The ruling means that I cannot go to a journalist with suspicions that my current employer may use illegal methods.
I cannot go to the police with that information, because the police doesn't care about immoral behaviour, as long as one doesn't break the law. And with this ruling, I cannot alert the press either, because the press will have to disclose who gave them information, which my company considered secret.
Very different things. The judge notes as much:
Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.
This ruling does not suggest that you can't say anything about illegal/hazardous behavior to a journalist. Nor does it mean that your anonymity is at risk in those cases...rather in this specific set of circumstances, where it is clear that non of those situations is occuring, then there is no legal reason why the bloggers can't be compelled to name the criminals. This is very, very far from the sky-is-falling scenarios you suggest.
That's the things about judges...usually, they are pretty smart, have a decent grasp of the law, and actually consider the particulars of a case before passing judgment. That obviously can't be said for the general/. readership.
The hair on the back of my neck stands up whenever I hear someone claim that "CDs cost too much."
The issue is perceived cost to create versus retail cost. CDs as a physical product are cheaper than dirt to produce. Everyone is well aware of that, and when you are at the local soul-eating media store looking at a cd on one side of the store and a DVD on the other, it just feels wrong. An hour of music, or a few hours of a movie + extra features for ~the same money...something seems off. Further, when the common perception (which seems to at least approximate reality) is that the artist makes a tiny percent of that $15, you are left with the rational calculation "proving" that BigMediaCorp is making a killing. The truth of a CDs value in $/hour of enjoyment is a calculation people rarely make.
And just to be ornery, and because superlatives are never right *smirk*, your list of "expensive" entertainment all involve going out. Pick a better genre of entertainment and your supposition looks far less compelling. It would not be hard to argue that any number of PS2/gamecube/computer games outstrip CDs in the $/hour of enjoyment ratio. I bet you could even make the case that a netflix membership is capable of doing the same, or even better...a library card. Or, hell a television. Or cable. Or broadband. Or a playboy subscription.
Their competitor Netflix is saying the same thing - "Keep them as long as you want! No late fees!" Except I'm paying $17.99 a month and can't get any new movies until I return the old ones, so ergo the late fee is $17.99/month. Duh.
Are you serious? Surely you are just trolling (or are an idiot). "Keep them as long as you like." Check, you can. Period. In fact, netflix is happier the longer you keep them. "No late fees." As in, extra fees for turning in a movie late. There are none. You *cant* turn a movie in late. The monthly fee is the same, regardless of whether you return every movie you get the same day, or whether you don't return a single one. I can't imagine a way you can consider that a "late" fee.
I completely agree with your assessment of the general slashdot (and general cultural) reaction being one of ignorant flailing. This is a general problem with science and translating science to useful public understanding, mostly because science is hard .
That being said, I had dinner with Kary Mullis after he gave a lecture about various things, including how he is not convinced the HIV is the cause of AIDS. Now there are lots of scientists who think he is a quack, and I'm not sure I buy his arguments either...but there is reasonable logic behind them. And a large part of his point was that once people (even the ostensibly impartial practitioner of science) get emotionally involved in an idea, it is hard to have a rational discussion. This point was proven almost perfectly in his lecture, as a post-doc got up and heckled him about HIV!=AIDS, despite the fact that his statements were anything but objectionable. (ie, "I have not been shown data that convince me that HIV causes AIDs.") Anyway, way off topic.
Another possibility is someone slapping together a meta-airline search engine, that runs its own army of accounts and automatically sends requests to Orbitz, Travelocity, Expeida, Opopo (or whatever it is) at once, then returns the data
The great thing about these here internets, is that someone has almost alwaysdoneitalready.
Anyone got any proof Bush lied besides all of the sore losers? Anyone?
Iraq is an imminent threat.
Iraq bought yellowcake from Nigeria.
Iraq has WMD.
Medicare bill will cost $400 billion.
By 2042 the SS system will be bankrupt.
Castro welcomes sex tourism.
$10 billion for AIDS in africa.
We're going to Mars!
The tax cuts offer most of the benefit to middle and low income families.
More than 60 viable stem cell lines.
The scientific community is still undecided about global warming.
and on and on and on. It is far too easy to point out this administration's falsehoods.
I'm not sure where the religion bit came in, I certainly did not bring that up anywhere. And as for that, being religious is not the slightest bit objectionable. That Bush feels he was divinely picked, and divinely led is a little disturbing. (We tend to look down on that in other countries...)
That's 12 years under Republican Administrations and 8 years under a Democratic one.
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Except that the current administration has a certifiable habit of being deceptive or outright lying. Trying to impose a false moral equivalence is inappropriate in this situation. System wide or not, the Bush administration has provided ample evidence that they are far more prone to executive abuses than any previous administration in recent memory.
Your example seems more related to, say, patent protection than trademark concerns. If company A decides it can make money by selling a "Paper Bindomatic (tm)" (translation, a stapler), then I'm not sure anyone is to blame save those who OK'd the business plan. If, however, Company A made a newer, better stapler then we are talking patents.
Also, it seems to be borne out that marketing works, and people will pay more for the same item if it is marketed well (how many people buy Advil instead of ibuprofen?).
But has there been statistical and empirical studies to demonstrate that?
That being part of a conversation is more cognitively difficult than passively listening to music? Yes (sorry, only the google cache works for this) therehave. There is a world of cognitive psychology and public safety research focused on interference of tasks, particularly with respect to driving. This study is not a first time thing...in fact the first reference i've found is from the journal of applied psych from 1969! [Brown, I.D., Tickner, A.H., & Simmonds, D.C. (1969). Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 419-424.]
I would submit that the reason you feel no one has demonstrated this is due more to your not really being involved in the field than to a lack of evidence.
This isn't a purely scientific/statistical issue and can't be argued that way.
The question of whether cell phone use negatively affects driving performance is certainly a scientifically answerable question. You are right, though that the broader implications of this, including societal reactions, leaves the realm of the purely scientific.
d. The question isn't what minimizes accidents, it's what is a reasonable balance. And if we have fewer accidents now and rampant use of cellphones, I can't see it is reasonable to say banning them is necessary. If so, why isn't it (or wasn't it) necessary to ban other distractions? You've got to think of the sociological side of this too.
True, we could reduce accidents to 0 if we eliminated cars. As you say, there needs to be a compromise between freedoms and public safety. However, the suggestion that due to safer driving conditions (roads, cars, etc) we should ignore the dangerous effect of a new variables seems like a poor one to me. Imagine how much lower accident rates could be if you add together safer conditions, and less distraction. You could make your argument just as well for drunk driving (which our society has deemed a Dangerous and Bad Thing)....since we have safer conditions, then we should allow people to drive drunk. That is the analogy that needs to be made (just like this paper does...), that driving on a cell phone is, scientifically, as bad as driving drunk.
You are also correct in that determining what distractions should be legislated is a very sticky issue. We don't accept intoxication, but we do accept kids (though in most places they must be belted in to both protect their safety, and to limit the amount of distraction that is possible). We don't accept a level of sight-impairment, but we're cool with eating. Sociologically, if the point is to reduce accidents, then the plan should be to go after the most dangerous things that have a legitimate chance of being effected (passengers and radios aren't going anywhere). I would submit that cell phones, due to their recent societal explosion are one of the ripest targets.
I suppose you could take the rather cynical argument that we can accept X thousand automobile deaths a year, and once we've hit that we are fine. If we make safer cars, then the zero-sum nature suggests that we can allow more dangerous actions. There is even some evidence that this is the situation we have...but personally I would prefer that we try to continue to lower X.
And I am sorry....a cell phone user is NOT more impaired than a drunk driver. It is political BS. I refuse to buy it and no statistic will prove it to me.
Um, it was right about here that I decided you aren't really willing to have a reasonable discussion. "Evidence?! fuck that, I *know* the sky is green."
Simply put...I see tons of people driving on the cell phones - and driving fine. Sometimes a momentary reaction issue...yes.
Let's see, what do you think is needed to turn a normal drive home into a fatal accident? Maybe a momentary reaction issue?
Somehow it is hard for me to accept that I can see a 100+ cell phone users who are supposedly "more impaired" and they don't perform as poorly as drunk drivers.
That's because you don't have sufficient information to make this judgement. Just because something doesn't jive with your limited, self-selected recollection does not mean it can't be true. Welcome to science.
Slashdot Mirror
And San Jose's not safer than Detroit, just less crime.
-Ted
Yeah, it's not like totally generic english words can be held as relatively strong trademarks in the US. *cough*WindowsExcelConvectionFreelancerNatural*cou gh*DevelopFinderGadgetPagesSafariSpotlightSwitcher TigerYum
-Ted
-Ted
What a novel idea for someone in business.
-Ted
2. Here's a comparison of sizes using famous people: your dell, the mini.
-Ted
Second and more importantly, that isn't what this does. This setup is mainly to help in teaching about molecular interactions by providing an enhanced tactile environment. Lots of people learn better when they can actually touch models. This is a system that takes these models and adds a layer of virtual reality on top of them. So not only can you play with a model of your favorite protein..feel it, turn it around in your hands, etc etc, but now you can have a computer superimpose various types of information on that model. Show the structure of any residue's sidechain, show the electrostatic potential around any part of the protein, show how a small molecule docks inside a protein, etc etc. All types of information that has been represented by static pictures, then pre-rendered movies, then interactive movies, are now able to be demonstrated in an even more intuitive system.
-Ted
And let me just say how cool it was to click on a Slashdot story that has one of my phd committee members (Art Olson) in it!
Mavericks is a gay bar in Dallas. It's owned by a group with lots of them all over the country: Cavaliers in Cleveland, Kings in Sacramento, Bucks in Milwaukee, Pacers in Indianapolis, Spurs in San Antonio, Heat in Miami, Magic in Orlando.
-Ted
Ok, I'll bite. Bullshit.
States rights exist, in some kind of balance with federal rights (granted, the balance may not please you, but that's a far from cry from non-existence). Any state has the right to lower the drinking age. They will lose some federal transportation funding if they do so, but they can do so.
A simple perusal of state law codes should prove the existence widely varying statutes.
With regards to the SC decision, since the majority's logic was based on the 8th amendment, it's pretty clear that this is a federal issue (see the 10th amendment). (and, just so we are clear, the decision brought us out of the glorious company of China, the Congo, Iran, Pakistan as the only countries to actively execute juveniles.)
-Ted
Cordelia's birthday cake has Wonderwoman on it. This is ironic since Charisma Carpenter has said that she wants to play Wonderwoman in the movie version.
-Ted
I have one of those SA8000HD's from cox, as well as a tivo sitting on a non-hd set. I probably swear at the 8000HD weekly about how inferior it is to tivo.
Positives for the 8000HD:
Negatives:
It really does feel like a rushed, still-in-beta product. It turns what should be a life-simplifying process into an aggravating ordeal. I'll be first in line once tivo gets a HD setup going (come on cablecard 2.0). They are one of those companies (like apple) who realizes that a well engineered product really matters.
-Ted
I cannot go to the police with that information, because the police doesn't care about immoral behaviour, as long as one doesn't break the law. And with this ruling, I cannot alert the press either, because the press will have to disclose who gave them information, which my company considered secret.
Very different things. The judge notes as much:
Unlike the whistleblower who discloses a health, safety or welfare hazard affecting all, or the government employee who reveals mismanagement or worse by our public officials, [the enthusiast sites] are doing nothing more than feeding the public's insatiable desire for information.
This ruling does not suggest that you can't say anything about illegal/hazardous behavior to a journalist. Nor does it mean that your anonymity is at risk in those cases...rather in this specific set of circumstances, where it is clear that non of those situations is occuring, then there is no legal reason why the bloggers can't be compelled to name the criminals. This is very, very far from the sky-is-falling scenarios you suggest.
That's the things about judges...usually, they are pretty smart, have a decent grasp of the law, and actually consider the particulars of a case before passing judgment. That obviously can't be said for the general /. readership.
-Ted
Dammit, i didn't get the email...frickin blackberry must be on the fritz again. Thanks for the heads-up.
-Drone 24601
The issue is perceived cost to create versus retail cost. CDs as a physical product are cheaper than dirt to produce. Everyone is well aware of that, and when you are at the local soul-eating media store looking at a cd on one side of the store and a DVD on the other, it just feels wrong. An hour of music, or a few hours of a movie + extra features for ~the same money...something seems off. Further, when the common perception (which seems to at least approximate reality) is that the artist makes a tiny percent of that $15, you are left with the rational calculation "proving" that BigMediaCorp is making a killing. The truth of a CDs value in $/hour of enjoyment is a calculation people rarely make.
And just to be ornery, and because superlatives are never right *smirk*, your list of "expensive" entertainment all involve going out. Pick a better genre of entertainment and your supposition looks far less compelling. It would not be hard to argue that any number of PS2/gamecube/computer games outstrip CDs in the $/hour of enjoyment ratio. I bet you could even make the case that a netflix membership is capable of doing the same, or even better...a library card. Or, hell a television. Or cable. Or broadband. Or a playboy subscription.
-Ted
-Ted
Are you serious? Surely you are just trolling (or are an idiot). "Keep them as long as you like." Check, you can. Period. In fact, netflix is happier the longer you keep them. "No late fees." As in, extra fees for turning in a movie late. There are none. You *cant* turn a movie in late. The monthly fee is the same, regardless of whether you return every movie you get the same day, or whether you don't return a single one. I can't imagine a way you can consider that a "late" fee.
-Ted
That being said, I had dinner with Kary Mullis after he gave a lecture about various things, including how he is not convinced the HIV is the cause of AIDS. Now there are lots of scientists who think he is a quack, and I'm not sure I buy his arguments either...but there is reasonable logic behind them. And a large part of his point was that once people (even the ostensibly impartial practitioner of science) get emotionally involved in an idea, it is hard to have a rational discussion. This point was proven almost perfectly in his lecture, as a post-doc got up and heckled him about HIV!=AIDS, despite the fact that his statements were anything but objectionable. (ie, "I have not been shown data that convince me that HIV causes AIDs.") Anyway, way off topic.
-Ted
The great thing about these here internets, is that someone has almost always done it already.
-Ted
-Ted
- Iraq is an imminent threat.
- Iraq bought yellowcake from Nigeria.
- Iraq has WMD.
- Medicare bill will cost $400 billion.
- By 2042 the SS system will be bankrupt.
- Castro welcomes sex tourism.
- $10 billion for AIDS in africa.
- We're going to Mars!
- The tax cuts offer most of the benefit to middle and low income families.
- More than 60 viable stem cell lines.
- The scientific community is still undecided about global warming.
and on and on and on. It is far too easy to point out this administration's falsehoods.I'm not sure where the religion bit came in, I certainly did not bring that up anywhere. And as for that, being religious is not the slightest bit objectionable. That Bush feels he was divinely picked, and divinely led is a little disturbing. (We tend to look down on that in other countries...)
-Ted
-Ted
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Except that the current administration has a certifiable habit of being deceptive or outright lying. Trying to impose a false moral equivalence is inappropriate in this situation. System wide or not, the Bush administration has provided ample evidence that they are far more prone to executive abuses than any previous administration in recent memory.
-Ted
Also, it seems to be borne out that marketing works, and people will pay more for the same item if it is marketed well (how many people buy Advil instead of ibuprofen?).
-Ted
That being part of a conversation is more cognitively difficult than passively listening to music? Yes (sorry, only the google cache works for this) there have. There is a world of cognitive psychology and public safety research focused on interference of tasks, particularly with respect to driving. This study is not a first time thing...in fact the first reference i've found is from the journal of applied psych from 1969! [Brown, I.D., Tickner, A.H., & Simmonds, D.C. (1969). Interference between concurrent tasks of driving and telephoning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(5), 419-424.]
I would submit that the reason you feel no one has demonstrated this is due more to your not really being involved in the field than to a lack of evidence.
This isn't a purely scientific/statistical issue and can't be argued that way.
The question of whether cell phone use negatively affects driving performance is certainly a scientifically answerable question. You are right, though that the broader implications of this, including societal reactions, leaves the realm of the purely scientific.
d. The question isn't what minimizes accidents, it's what is a reasonable balance. And if we have fewer accidents now and rampant use of cellphones, I can't see it is reasonable to say banning them is necessary. If so, why isn't it (or wasn't it) necessary to ban other distractions? You've got to think of the sociological side of this too.
True, we could reduce accidents to 0 if we eliminated cars. As you say, there needs to be a compromise between freedoms and public safety. However, the suggestion that due to safer driving conditions (roads, cars, etc) we should ignore the dangerous effect of a new variables seems like a poor one to me. Imagine how much lower accident rates could be if you add together safer conditions, and less distraction. You could make your argument just as well for drunk driving (which our society has deemed a Dangerous and Bad Thing)....since we have safer conditions, then we should allow people to drive drunk. That is the analogy that needs to be made (just like this paper does...), that driving on a cell phone is, scientifically, as bad as driving drunk.
You are also correct in that determining what distractions should be legislated is a very sticky issue. We don't accept intoxication, but we do accept kids (though in most places they must be belted in to both protect their safety, and to limit the amount of distraction that is possible). We don't accept a level of sight-impairment, but we're cool with eating. Sociologically, if the point is to reduce accidents, then the plan should be to go after the most dangerous things that have a legitimate chance of being effected (passengers and radios aren't going anywhere). I would submit that cell phones, due to their recent societal explosion are one of the ripest targets.
I suppose you could take the rather cynical argument that we can accept X thousand automobile deaths a year, and once we've hit that we are fine. If we make safer cars, then the zero-sum nature suggests that we can allow more dangerous actions. There is even some evidence that this is the situation we have...but personally I would prefer that we try to continue to lower X.
-Ted
Um, so are you a complete retard.
-Ted
Um, it was right about here that I decided you aren't really willing to have a reasonable discussion. "Evidence?! fuck that, I *know* the sky is green."
Simply put...I see tons of people driving on the cell phones - and driving fine. Sometimes a momentary reaction issue...yes.
Let's see, what do you think is needed to turn a normal drive home into a fatal accident? Maybe a momentary reaction issue?
Somehow it is hard for me to accept that I can see a 100+ cell phone users who are supposedly "more impaired" and they don't perform as poorly as drunk drivers.
That's because you don't have sufficient information to make this judgement. Just because something doesn't jive with your limited, self-selected recollection does not mean it can't be true. Welcome to science.
-Ted