"This is a study I myself wanted to do years ago,” says Thomas Insel, who heads the US National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. “...This study for me really is the first experimental demonstration that the epigenetic change would be necessary for the long-term change in behaviour.”
Insel continued. "Unfortunately, due to a scandalous bit of contrived fiction, we here at NIMH have been prohibited from doing this kind of work for decades. Every attempt to work on a rodent model is sabotaged, with a Frisbee left at the scene and the words 'REMEMBER NICODEMUS' spray-painted on the wall. Police never found a suspect, and eventually Congress pulled the funding. Hopefully our colleagues at Florida State can continue this valuable work without such interference!"
The information that's supposed to be requested in an NSL is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. It's supposed to be contentless info - you need a warrant to read someone's mail, but you don't need a warrant to read the unopened envelopes and record info about the return addresses, handwriting, stamp choice, etc. NSLs are supposed to get the electronic equivalent of that - phone numbers, email addresses, etc.
I say supposed to, because the gag order on them makes it very hard to complain if the NSL oversteps its legal bounds. The gag order is the issue - it's a First Amendment problem, not a Fourth Amendment one.
The original intent of NSLs was counter-espionage purposes during the Cold War. They wanted to track down Russian spies without tipping them off. Additionally, the information requested is supposed to be the sort that you don't need a warrant for - phone numbers dialed but not a transcript of the phone call, email addresses but not the email text, etc. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on that stuff.
Unfortunately, since the Patriot Act, they've started, shall we say, overstepping their bounds. Just a little.
Extremely hot or cold liquids would have done more to the pebbles than just knock their edges off - we can figure pretty well that they weren't melted or supercooled. The simplest conclusion for "liquid that flows in streams at the temperature range in question" would be either "water" or "the blood of thine enemies".
Possibly. But there are only so many tax dollars in every state. "You can have our tax dollars, but only if you agree to these restrictions on your behavior" is a favorable situation to "We wouldn't put restrictions on your behavior if we gave you tax dollars, but we're all out of them. Sorry."
Scientists always talk about how hard it is to get grant money. If there's money to be had in California, there will be people doing research there, regardless of publishing restrictions.
"You" is plural as well. Did you know that? The actual second person singular in English is "thou". The singular "you" gained acceptance when people realized the double benefit of having a simpler language and of not being pretentious dickbags.
X's and O's on a blackboard. We had to develop our own playbook, with blocking schemes and pass routes included. It turned out to be really easy, because my team had a fullback who could...wait. Uh, never mind; that was football camp, not computer camp.
Because people take network security about as seriously as they take nutrition. Everyone says they want to do the right thing, but then at the first sign of inconvenience they're back to their bad habits.
The mix-up was on the maneuvering thrusters used to correct lateral position. It did not affect the force exerted by the main engine during a course correction burn.
Not really, no. If you actually read what happened, the "metric mixup" was a contributing factor but not the critical factor, especially since the people knew it was off course and decided not to correct course. From the very article you linked:
The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed. A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers, and managers, was convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done.
But "We mixed up feet and meters! Whoopsie!" while embarrassing, is not quite so embarrassing as "We canceled the scheduled maneuver that would have saved the ship, even though we knew something was very wrong." Plus, it was an easy headline for the media. There were a legion of problems with the Mars Climate Orbiter that had nothing to do with unit systems. NASA was just in full-on derp mode at that time. Likewise, the Mars Polar Lander, which did not have a similar unit-conversion error, also crashed a few months later.
"the customer" is actually a euphemism for "every single unique individual out there who we can get to purchase our product". There's no WAY you can get a consensus on practically any feature or function you'd put in a product that's used by a wide variety of people, all in unique situations.
Only if you design products to be made in a cookie cutter and then stocked on a shelf to be pulled off by anyone who wants one. Not everyone works that way. Large structures like ships, cranes, bridges, etc. are often made as one-offs for a specific customer and designed to that customer's requested technical specification. Even ones that are "copies" of a previous project ("I really liked the last one, make me another!") are tweaked a bit based on expected environment, new standards, etc.
In software terms it's the difference between writing a program for mass distribution, like MSWord, and writing a payrolls processing database for some accounting firm somewhere. The MSWord team has to take "the customer" as a euphemism for the varied hordes that will use the program, whereas the accounting firm team can have daily contact with their customer and know exactly what they want.
So yes, we can easily tell them that they don't want the fancy-schmancy system they're asking for ("you want a collapsible crane? What else, should it play the Transformers theme song when it deploys?"), because we can talk face-to-face and show them exactly how much it will add to their final bill in both engineering time and added safety procedures.
It should be noted that your whole post has the caveat "unless someone could get hurt". Working in heavy industry, we quite frequently tell our clients "No, you do not want X. X does not make sense, and you will hurt yourselves. You want Z instead." If the client insists, we stop doing business with them. If the crane you built collapses because the customer wanted a "press here to collapse crane" button, nobody is going to give a damn that you have documentation proving the client really really wanted the button.
When it comes to health and safety, the customer is not always right.
Wanting to experiment with science and NOT hurting anyone in the process shouldn't be met by being kicked out of school, she's getting what she deserves.
Given that currently she's still kicked out of school, those two statements don't seem to match up.
First of all, do you know what "nigh" means?
Second, I'm assuming you're talking about adobe and mud? Yeah, they used that, but for buildings that were not important. Just because they could do high-quality work doesn't mean they made everything high-quality. Source, Source2
The Incas created structures that are nigh-earthquakeproof, using nothing but rocks (no mortar, cement, or other binding agents). Their cutting and grinding was so precise that when the joints were assembled, a blade of grass could not be inserted at any point.
"You said it worked for life, now you're saying it only works for a year? What, were you lying before, and you don't know what you're talking about, or are you lying now, and you just want my money on a yearly basis?"
It doesn't matter how elegant the solution is if nobody accepts the solution. Public trust in vaccines could take a huge hit with your proposed plan - you'd need one hell of a PR campaign to get people to accept it.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.
Slashdot Mirror
"This is a study I myself wanted to do years ago,” says Thomas Insel, who heads the US National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. “...This study for me really is the first experimental demonstration that the epigenetic change would be necessary for the long-term change in behaviour.”
Insel continued. "Unfortunately, due to a scandalous bit of contrived fiction, we here at NIMH have been prohibited from doing this kind of work for decades. Every attempt to work on a rodent model is sabotaged, with a Frisbee left at the scene and the words 'REMEMBER NICODEMUS' spray-painted on the wall. Police never found a suspect, and eventually Congress pulled the funding. Hopefully our colleagues at Florida State can continue this valuable work without such interference!"
You pretty much nailed it.
Oftentimes the government wants to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading, in spite of the older tech working just fine.
The older tech NOT working fine was a huge scandal during the 2000 election. "Hanging chad" is still a household term.
(probably mostly rock).
At least it's not some kind of smooth alternative. But I was hoping for something heavier, maybe with metal influences.
The information that's supposed to be requested in an NSL is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. It's supposed to be contentless info - you need a warrant to read someone's mail, but you don't need a warrant to read the unopened envelopes and record info about the return addresses, handwriting, stamp choice, etc. NSLs are supposed to get the electronic equivalent of that - phone numbers, email addresses, etc.
I say supposed to, because the gag order on them makes it very hard to complain if the NSL oversteps its legal bounds. The gag order is the issue - it's a First Amendment problem, not a Fourth Amendment one.
The original intent of NSLs was counter-espionage purposes during the Cold War. They wanted to track down Russian spies without tipping them off. Additionally, the information requested is supposed to be the sort that you don't need a warrant for - phone numbers dialed but not a transcript of the phone call, email addresses but not the email text, etc. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy on that stuff.
Unfortunately, since the Patriot Act, they've started, shall we say, overstepping their bounds. Just a little.
Extremely hot or cold liquids would have done more to the pebbles than just knock their edges off - we can figure pretty well that they weren't melted or supercooled. The simplest conclusion for "liquid that flows in streams at the temperature range in question" would be either "water" or "the blood of thine enemies".
The Tsar's government may have sucked royally, but I wouldn't consider what happened afterward to be "progress".
Scientists always talk about how hard it is to get grant money. If there's money to be had in California, there will be people doing research there, regardless of publishing restrictions.
"You" is plural as well. Did you know that? The actual second person singular in English is "thou". The singular "you" gained acceptance when people realized the double benefit of having a simpler language and of not being pretentious dickbags.
X's and O's on a blackboard. We had to develop our own playbook, with blocking schemes and pass routes included. It turned out to be really easy, because my team had a fullback who could...wait. Uh, never mind; that was football camp, not computer camp.
Because people take network security about as seriously as they take nutrition. Everyone says they want to do the right thing, but then at the first sign of inconvenience they're back to their bad habits.
The mix-up was on the maneuvering thrusters used to correct lateral position. It did not affect the force exerted by the main engine during a course correction burn.
The discrepancy between calculated and measured position, resulting in the discrepancy between desired and actual orbit insertion altitude, had been noticed earlier by at least two navigators, whose concerns were dismissed. A meeting of trajectory software engineers, trajectory software operators (navigators), propulsion engineers, and managers, was convened to consider the possibility of executing Trajectory Correction Maneuver-5, which was in the schedule. Attendees of the meeting recall an agreement to conduct TCM-5, but it was ultimately not done.
But "We mixed up feet and meters! Whoopsie!" while embarrassing, is not quite so embarrassing as "We canceled the scheduled maneuver that would have saved the ship, even though we knew something was very wrong." Plus, it was an easy headline for the media. There were a legion of problems with the Mars Climate Orbiter that had nothing to do with unit systems. NASA was just in full-on derp mode at that time. Likewise, the Mars Polar Lander, which did not have a similar unit-conversion error, also crashed a few months later.
"the customer" is actually a euphemism for "every single unique individual out there who we can get to purchase our product". There's no WAY you can get a consensus on practically any feature or function you'd put in a product that's used by a wide variety of people, all in unique situations.
Only if you design products to be made in a cookie cutter and then stocked on a shelf to be pulled off by anyone who wants one. Not everyone works that way. Large structures like ships, cranes, bridges, etc. are often made as one-offs for a specific customer and designed to that customer's requested technical specification. Even ones that are "copies" of a previous project ("I really liked the last one, make me another!") are tweaked a bit based on expected environment, new standards, etc.
In software terms it's the difference between writing a program for mass distribution, like MSWord, and writing a payrolls processing database for some accounting firm somewhere. The MSWord team has to take "the customer" as a euphemism for the varied hordes that will use the program, whereas the accounting firm team can have daily contact with their customer and know exactly what they want.
So yes, we can easily tell them that they don't want the fancy-schmancy system they're asking for ("you want a collapsible crane? What else, should it play the Transformers theme song when it deploys?"), because we can talk face-to-face and show them exactly how much it will add to their final bill in both engineering time and added safety procedures.
For the purposes of a motion-detection test, though, having moving objects in your field of vision could be a problem.
It should be noted that your whole post has the caveat "unless someone could get hurt". Working in heavy industry, we quite frequently tell our clients "No, you do not want X. X does not make sense, and you will hurt yourselves. You want Z instead." If the client insists, we stop doing business with them. If the crane you built collapses because the customer wanted a "press here to collapse crane" button, nobody is going to give a damn that you have documentation proving the client really really wanted the button.
When it comes to health and safety, the customer is not always right.
Wanting to experiment with science and NOT hurting anyone in the process shouldn't be met by being kicked out of school, she's getting what she deserves.
Given that currently she's still kicked out of school, those two statements don't seem to match up.
I believe rules are rules and you break them, you should be punished
You know she's still expelled, right? Space Camp is a consolation prize.
Wasn't that polio, not TB? I haven't watched House in years. And it was a hoax even in the episode.
That, or a pill encased in a jagged metal O.
First of all, do you know what "nigh" means?
Second, I'm assuming you're talking about adobe and mud? Yeah, they used that, but for buildings that were not important. Just because they could do high-quality work doesn't mean they made everything high-quality. Source, Source2
The Incas created structures that are nigh-earthquakeproof, using nothing but rocks (no mortar, cement, or other binding agents). Their cutting and grinding was so precise that when the joints were assembled, a blade of grass could not be inserted at any point.
Never underestimate the power of rocks.
Actually, MSG is indeed present in certain vaccines as a stabilizer. Reports of its toxicity are, of course, bunkum, but it is there.
"You said it worked for life, now you're saying it only works for a year? What, were you lying before, and you don't know what you're talking about, or are you lying now, and you just want my money on a yearly basis?"
It doesn't matter how elegant the solution is if nobody accepts the solution. Public trust in vaccines could take a huge hit with your proposed plan - you'd need one hell of a PR campaign to get people to accept it.
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Possibly detrimental
Possibly detrimental, possibly beneficial. Watching a playthrough could make a viewer say "ew, that game looks terrible" or "hey, I want to try that!" I don't see how you can make a deterministic statement either way. Your other points are accurate, though.