The article says, in essence, that the study found that using Brain Academy type software for six weeks did not improve cognitive function. However, nowhere does the study prove, as the article alleges, that use of such software could not slow the rate of cognitive decay. These are two entirely different things - the second one would require a long-term study tracking both users and non-users over, say, 20 or 30 years.
In this case, it was more of a conflict between free speech and the privacy of others, since they were conflicted of violating the Italian privacy code (which is pretty stringent). For the record, your right to free speech stops somewhere before you post my personal information on the 'net.
Not only are younger coders generally cheaper, they also generally are more into the "new technologies" -- as a programmer gets older, it becomes almost a second job to keep up with the new technology as it comes out, and at some point I suspect that many just decide it's easier to get off the carousel and go find something else to do.
As an example, if you've been coding in COBOL for 20 years, Java can be an awkward language to learn. However, many new grads in the last 10 years learned Java as their first language. As such, even though the senior coder probably would perform better in the long run (due to more experience with designing efficient algorithms and more knowledge of internal business processes), management would likely hire a couple of recent grads rather than pay to have our COBOL programmer trained in Java.
Yes, I remember those climatologists -- if I remember right, they were Patrick McDoesntexist and Jonathan Strawman.
Actually, it was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who isn't a climatologist, but is an "environmental lawyer" (and thus one would have hoped he'd fact-check before publishing...)
That said, if the scientific data weren't so miserably absent on BOTH sides of this debate, I might actually be willing to side with one or the other but as it stands I'm definitely on the fence about the whole situation.
Congratulations, you're a skeptic. Which, these days, means you're tarred as a denier, and thus are no better than a baby-killer according to some folks. Personally, I view healthy skepticism as a good thing, but apparently we're not allowed to do that any more. Must have missed that memo.
The/. article is definitely wrong, given that the missile was fired from an island, not a sub. However, the linked article contradicts itself - first it says "The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile" (emphasis mine) but later in the same article it says what you said.
So either it was destroyed or it wasn't, but it was fired from an island, not a submarine. Unless we're parking the things on dry land now?
Or like a mythical fourth Indiana Jones movie... That would be so awesome, seeing Indy one final time, but I guess Harrison Ford is getting a bit old now.
Have scientists been able to throw together basic ingredients of living things and have the resulting pile resemble anything even close to life? Even in perfectly favorable lab settings?
I am wary of the cancer risks from ionizing radiation, especially backscatter x-rays since the scattering is caused by x-ray energy being absorbed by the body's cells. No matter what PR bullshit they give out, its bad for the human body.
Actually, the risks might be over-stated, if you believe this guy. It might even be good for you, or so he claims.
Slashdot Mirror
...he's achieved inner peas?
The article says, in essence, that the study found that using Brain Academy type software for six weeks did not improve cognitive function. However, nowhere does the study prove, as the article alleges, that use of such software could not slow the rate of cognitive decay. These are two entirely different things - the second one would require a long-term study tracking both users and non-users over, say, 20 or 30 years.
The /. summary refers to "US-made products" - in a factory in China? Really? Somehow, I doubt that, especially if you actually RTFA.
There are companies that will sell you coins from many different countries, if you're worried about spending your spy coin...
Some place like this
won't somebody think of the PICKLES??? This could be the end of the kosher dill as we know it!
Yeah, I doubt that I'm gonna be able to bring a laptop on a plane with RDX in its battery...
Rule 29 applies here:
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less.
You mean "Bazinga!"
And thermonuclear warfare...
In this case, it was more of a conflict between free speech and the privacy of others, since they were conflicted of violating the Italian privacy code (which is pretty stringent). For the record, your right to free speech stops somewhere before you post my personal information on the 'net.
Now that thanks to SCOTUS foreign corps and nationals can just openly buy any politician they want I expect the slide to be even quicker.
If it were that easy to buy public opinion, we'd all be drinking New Coke.
Not only are younger coders generally cheaper, they also generally are more into the "new technologies" -- as a programmer gets older, it becomes almost a second job to keep up with the new technology as it comes out, and at some point I suspect that many just decide it's easier to get off the carousel and go find something else to do.
As an example, if you've been coding in COBOL for 20 years, Java can be an awkward language to learn. However, many new grads in the last 10 years learned Java as their first language. As such, even though the senior coder probably would perform better in the long run (due to more experience with designing efficient algorithms and more knowledge of internal business processes), management would likely hire a couple of recent grads rather than pay to have our COBOL programmer trained in Java.
Okay, how's this? A mathematical formula for perfect pancakes...
I think you mean approximately 300 000 km/s, not km/h. You're only out by a factor of 3600, no worries!
Except that Mercury's sun side is 150 degrees Centigrade warmer than Venus (630 versus 480).
Yes, I remember those climatologists -- if I remember right, they were Patrick McDoesntexist and Jonathan Strawman.
Actually, it was Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who isn't a climatologist, but is an "environmental lawyer" (and thus one would have hoped he'd fact-check before publishing...)
That said, if the scientific data weren't so miserably absent on BOTH sides of this debate, I might actually be willing to side with one or the other but as it stands I'm definitely on the fence about the whole situation.
Congratulations, you're a skeptic. Which, these days, means you're tarred as a denier, and thus are no better than a baby-killer according to some folks. Personally, I view healthy skepticism as a good thing, but apparently we're not allowed to do that any more. Must have missed that memo.
The /. article is definitely wrong, given that the missile was fired from an island, not a sub. However, the linked article contradicts itself - first it says "The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile" (emphasis mine) but later in the same article it says what you said.
So either it was destroyed or it wasn't, but it was fired from an island, not a submarine. Unless we're parking the things on dry land now?
Or like a mythical fourth Indiana Jones movie... That would be so awesome, seeing Indy one final time, but I guess Harrison Ford is getting a bit old now.
Double it, and add thirty!
Have scientists been able to throw together basic ingredients of living things and have the resulting pile resemble anything even close to life? Even in perfectly favorable lab settings?
yep
(Depending on how you define "life", of course)
I am wary of the cancer risks from ionizing radiation, especially backscatter x-rays since the scattering is caused by x-ray energy being absorbed by the body's cells. No matter what PR bullshit they give out, its bad for the human body.
Actually, the risks might be over-stated, if you believe this guy. It might even be good for you, or so he claims.
An "expositionist"? So, you organize trade fairs and such?
The word is "exhibitionist", if you mean you like to show your goodies to random strangers.
Personally, I'm looking for some sort of reflective material that I can make into paint and paint rude messages to the security people on my body.