The lack of a sarcasm mark is a serious one. Why is sarcasm a second-rate method of expressing oneself through text when compared to declarations, imperative statements, interrogations, shouting or unfinished sentences?
Sarcasm is very frequently indicated by nuances that aren't transmitted through text. If humans have trouble getting sarcasm out of text, why should an algorithm do any better with the same set of data?
If animals are not healthy, then antibiotics are being administered as the answer to a specific illness, not randomly. Do you randomly take antibiotics every day? I sure hope not.
Second, drug-resistant bacteria do develop in animals given antibiotics for no real reason (other than the magical, inexplicable enhanced growth == profit margins). Bacteria can be easily transferred from animals to humans. The majority of them is harmless, probably. But, if something nasty does mutate and gains resistance to certain antibiotics, it getting transferred (it will, sooner or later) to humans may be a very big problem.
To make things worse, bacteria like to share genetic material, which helps (among other things) spread immunities to other bacteria.
It's not a matter of trying to connect the dots. It is possible. Which means it will probably happen, given enough occurrences.
Let's assume that you're right. Where do antibiotics go after they leave an organism? A good portion ends up in water supplies, so the antibiotics get further distributed, ending up in humans. Combine small doses of antibiotics with an infection and you have the perfect environment for the development of antibiotic resistance.
But again, let's assume that won't happen. What's the advantage of using antibiotics for no reason, other than somehow making animals grow faster? A larger profit margin for the owner, perhaps.
It boils down to the very likely possibility of some drug-resistant bacteria to show up versus someone's profit margin.
You seem to be missing the point. Randomly giving animals (or people, but that's harder to control) antibiotics without them needed said antibiotics will eventually create antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Your point is a typical "We can't fix everything, so let's fix nothing!" attitude I've seen applied way too often on this website.
Also, these antibiotics aren't banned. Uncontrolled administration of any antibiotic for non-medical reasons is. What would you suggest we do? Stop using antibiotics and hope not to die because of something that could've been easily treated with antibiotics but wasn't due to a fear that some bacteria will develop a resistance against it?
It's not a matter of eliminating the problem, it's a matter of controlling it, limiting it to situations where the probabiility of some mutant strain appearing is acceptable compared to death.
I don't believe the can make it work without significantly different hardware than what is currently available. That means that for most situations, running a new cable would be cheaper than adding costly hardware on both ends.
Considering DSL's promises, 100 Mb/s at 100m would be very lucky (and a lot more expensive than Gigabit ethernet, which is dirt cheap).
The only practical application this has is in fiber to the Curb/Building scenarios, where Fiber is run to a local, central location and then distributed via some other interface. Using DSL would theoretically allow for existing wiring to be used, but that sounds like major trouble in the making. It's much easier to just run fiber to the customer's premises and give them a fiber modem and crappy thomson router, considering the work that would probably be required to re-use existing phone cabling. Even cheaper is using Gigabit ethernet, instead of DSL, if they really want to keep fiber outside.
At that point you might as well just run the last drop and pay much less for the needed equipment. A fiber modem plus a router with good ol' Cat 6/1000 BaseT will definitely be cheaper than said fiber modem plus DSLAM plus a DSL modem per customer.
I hope we never see this. It's a waste of resources - much better to just run fiber (Or ethernet, since we're talking about 100m) those last few meters and allow for easy upgrades in the future without the burden of ancient telephone cables.
The PC Kinect will use USB 3.0, no word on power delivery, but it could be through said USB 3.0 connection. The Xbox One version won't be very different, I guess, but they might complicate things with different protocols and out of spec stuff on the Xbox One.
I guess we'll quickly know if they just used a proprietary connector and kept everything else.
Don't underestimate RC planes. There are some fancier models that could easily carry enough explosives to cause serious damage in a small area. Hell, get three or four and rig something so that they can drop their payload and you suddenly have quite a problem on your hands if you can't spot where they go afterwards.
To have Android as a desktop OS only proves Microsoft right about many of Windows 8's design choices. I'm not saying it does not have its niche, but Android is not going to replace Windows, OS X or your favorite Linux distro.
Android, as is, has the reputation of being a resource hog. I do not have enough experience to wholeheartedly agree, but I understand the reputation (Emphasis on interpreted code over natively compiled executables, some experiences with high-end phone hardware lagging - even my very short use of a GS4 in a store display left me unimpressed, etc.). If it's going to acquire fundamental desktop OS traits (satisfactory driver support comes to mind), it'll just get worse.
Android's reputation security-wise also leaves much to be desired. A (reputed) poor evaluation of Google Play apps is unacceptable for most traditional desktop environments. The OS' resistance to attacks is also unproven at best, broken at worst, depending on whom you ask. Sure, some environments won't need this, but I don't see Android gaining any traction there, which leads me back to the beginning - design choices.
Android's interface is tailored for mobile devices. It does not work with a keyboard and mouse, at least not nearly as well as it has to. Windows 8 gets a lot of flak for Metro, despite having the desktop available, even on crippled RT (which still allows IE and Office, and possibly select third-party software in the future, besides all native OS functions).
Sure, Android can get a desktop-oriented interface - but why should it? There are plenty of alternatives (Windows, OS X to a lesser extent, Ubuntu and co., Debian, BSD stuff...) that are already more capable than Android will be in the next few years, if ever. They are ready to be deployed now, on existing or easily acquired hardware, with varying degrees of familiar interfaces.
Android's sole theoretical advantage is its app store(s) - nearly endless apps ranging from "absolutely useless" to "decent enough", with a detour through "potentially dangerous". This is a good as useless, as most (I won't say all) apps are designed exclusively for touchscreens, with, at most, imporvised keyboard and mouse controls.
What's my point, you might be asking yourself. Windows 8 has been nearly universally criticized for trying to move to mobile neglecting desktop users. Android is even more oriented towards mobile than Windows 8. Windows 8 seems to be improving, and there are many free, open source, even, alternatives to Windows. A broad move to Android would just serve to worsen the trend Windows 8 may have started without any benefits for the vast majority of users. As such, I believe such a move would be widely rejected.
Besides Android's merits (or lack thereof), there's the issue of a certain company named Google, who has been occasionally showing signs of, ironically, being evil, at least according to some interpretations. I wouldn't go that far, but I see it as likely enough to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt. Not good traits for a product to have, like Microsoft has been showing us lately, between the mess that is Windows 8, their slowness in dealing with certain aspects of Windows Phone (notably the merger of Windows Phone and regular Windows, at least from a developer's viewpoint) and the Xbox One unveiling.
tl;dr Look at what happened to Windows 8. Android on desktop is not happening.
Use the hidden partition. They can't prove it's there. Dump stuff you wouldn't want a complete stranger to see in there, like receipts for all your electronics (silly example). If they insist on brute-forcing it to check for a hidden partition, wish them luck.
Where's the money for Google? Microsoft can sell all kinds of stuff after using this as a promotional tool. Google can only sell ads, and I don't see them reacting to this until it's proven to have made an impact worth countering.
Can't we just give the individual lawyers stupid patents, put them in a ring and say "Whoever wins the most patent litigations between you gets more patents!"?
Neither I, nor anyone I know has ever complained about this. However, it's not the first time I've heard about this complaint. And my mind is starting to play tricks on me: I just "noticed" some flicker on an LCD monitor (fluorescent backlight) I've had for years.
I can't conclude whether or not the issue has any merit, but my preliminary conclusion is that discussing the issue tends to cause it.
Slashdot Mirror
The lack of a sarcasm mark is a serious one. Why is sarcasm a second-rate method of expressing oneself through text when compared to declarations, imperative statements, interrogations, shouting or unfinished sentences?
Sarcasm is very frequently indicated by nuances that aren't transmitted through text. If humans have trouble getting sarcasm out of text, why should an algorithm do any better with the same set of data?
The very original release just read Star Wars, from what I've seen, with the "Episode 4" added later
If animals are not healthy, then antibiotics are being administered as the answer to a specific illness, not randomly. Do you randomly take antibiotics every day? I sure hope not.
Around cattle, garlic might not be the worst smell by a longshot.
First of all, don't blindly trust wikipedia.
Second, drug-resistant bacteria do develop in animals given antibiotics for no real reason (other than the magical, inexplicable enhanced growth == profit margins). Bacteria can be easily transferred from animals to humans. The majority of them is harmless, probably. But, if something nasty does mutate and gains resistance to certain antibiotics, it getting transferred (it will, sooner or later) to humans may be a very big problem.
To make things worse, bacteria like to share genetic material, which helps (among other things) spread immunities to other bacteria.
It's not a matter of trying to connect the dots. It is possible. Which means it will probably happen, given enough occurrences.
Let's assume that you're right. Where do antibiotics go after they leave an organism? A good portion ends up in water supplies, so the antibiotics get further distributed, ending up in humans. Combine small doses of antibiotics with an infection and you have the perfect environment for the development of antibiotic resistance.
But again, let's assume that won't happen. What's the advantage of using antibiotics for no reason, other than somehow making animals grow faster? A larger profit margin for the owner, perhaps.
It boils down to the very likely possibility of some drug-resistant bacteria to show up versus someone's profit margin.
You seem to be missing the point. Randomly giving animals (or people, but that's harder to control) antibiotics without them needed said antibiotics will eventually create antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Your point is a typical "We can't fix everything, so let's fix nothing!" attitude I've seen applied way too often on this website.
Also, these antibiotics aren't banned. Uncontrolled administration of any antibiotic for non-medical reasons is. What would you suggest we do? Stop using antibiotics and hope not to die because of something that could've been easily treated with antibiotics but wasn't due to a fear that some bacteria will develop a resistance against it?
It's not a matter of eliminating the problem, it's a matter of controlling it, limiting it to situations where the probabiility of some mutant strain appearing is acceptable compared to death.
I don't believe the can make it work without significantly different hardware than what is currently available. That means that for most situations, running a new cable would be cheaper than adding costly hardware on both ends.
Considering DSL's promises, 100 Mb/s at 100m would be very lucky (and a lot more expensive than Gigabit ethernet, which is dirt cheap).
The only practical application this has is in fiber to the Curb/Building scenarios, where Fiber is run to a local, central location and then distributed via some other interface. Using DSL would theoretically allow for existing wiring to be used, but that sounds like major trouble in the making. It's much easier to just run fiber to the customer's premises and give them a fiber modem and crappy thomson router, considering the work that would probably be required to re-use existing phone cabling. Even cheaper is using Gigabit ethernet, instead of DSL, if they really want to keep fiber outside.
At that point you might as well just run the last drop and pay much less for the needed equipment. A fiber modem plus a router with good ol' Cat 6/1000 BaseT will definitely be cheaper than said fiber modem plus DSLAM plus a DSL modem per customer.
I hope we never see this. It's a waste of resources - much better to just run fiber (Or ethernet, since we're talking about 100m) those last few meters and allow for easy upgrades in the future without the burden of ancient telephone cables.
The PC Kinect will use USB 3.0, no word on power delivery, but it could be through said USB 3.0 connection. The Xbox One version won't be very different, I guess, but they might complicate things with different protocols and out of spec stuff on the Xbox One.
I guess we'll quickly know if they just used a proprietary connector and kept everything else.
Held under the dorsal guiding feathers or something of the sort?
Seriously, though. A big RC plane can carry enough explosives to cause chaos in a crowd, perhaps even severe injuries.
Don't underestimate RC planes. There are some fancier models that could easily carry enough explosives to cause serious damage in a small area.
Hell, get three or four and rig something so that they can drop their payload and you suddenly have quite a problem on your hands if you can't spot where they go afterwards.
3-4% of PC users is a pretty large number. Enough for its own not-so-small niche.
To have Android as a desktop OS only proves Microsoft right about many of Windows 8's design choices. I'm not saying it does not have its niche, but Android is not going to replace Windows, OS X or your favorite Linux distro.
Android, as is, has the reputation of being a resource hog. I do not have enough experience to wholeheartedly agree, but I understand the reputation (Emphasis on interpreted code over natively compiled executables, some experiences with high-end phone hardware lagging - even my very short use of a GS4 in a store display left me unimpressed, etc.). If it's going to acquire fundamental desktop OS traits (satisfactory driver support comes to mind), it'll just get worse.
Android's reputation security-wise also leaves much to be desired. A (reputed) poor evaluation of Google Play apps is unacceptable for most traditional desktop environments. The OS' resistance to attacks is also unproven at best, broken at worst, depending on whom you ask. Sure, some environments won't need this, but I don't see Android gaining any traction there, which leads me back to the beginning - design choices.
Android's interface is tailored for mobile devices. It does not work with a keyboard and mouse, at least not nearly as well as it has to. Windows 8 gets a lot of flak for Metro, despite having the desktop available, even on crippled RT (which still allows IE and Office, and possibly select third-party software in the future, besides all native OS functions).
Sure, Android can get a desktop-oriented interface - but why should it? There are plenty of alternatives (Windows, OS X to a lesser extent, Ubuntu and co., Debian, BSD stuff...) that are already more capable than Android will be in the next few years, if ever. They are ready to be deployed now, on existing or easily acquired hardware, with varying degrees of familiar interfaces.
Android's sole theoretical advantage is its app store(s) - nearly endless apps ranging from "absolutely useless" to "decent enough", with a detour through "potentially dangerous". This is a good as useless, as most (I won't say all) apps are designed exclusively for touchscreens, with, at most, imporvised keyboard and mouse controls.
What's my point, you might be asking yourself. Windows 8 has been nearly universally criticized for trying to move to mobile neglecting desktop users. Android is even more oriented towards mobile than Windows 8. Windows 8 seems to be improving, and there are many free, open source, even, alternatives to Windows.
A broad move to Android would just serve to worsen the trend Windows 8 may have started without any benefits for the vast majority of users. As such, I believe such a move would be widely rejected.
Besides Android's merits (or lack thereof), there's the issue of a certain company named Google, who has been occasionally showing signs of, ironically, being evil, at least according to some interpretations. I wouldn't go that far, but I see it as likely enough to cause fear, uncertainty and doubt. Not good traits for a product to have, like Microsoft has been showing us lately, between the mess that is Windows 8, their slowness in dealing with certain aspects of Windows Phone (notably the merger of Windows Phone and regular Windows, at least from a developer's viewpoint) and the Xbox One unveiling.
tl;dr Look at what happened to Windows 8. Android on desktop is not happening.
Damn, "In there" being the decoy partition.
Use the hidden partition. They can't prove it's there. Dump stuff you wouldn't want a complete stranger to see in there, like receipts for all your electronics (silly example). If they insist on brute-forcing it to check for a hidden partition, wish them luck.
Where's the money for Google? Microsoft can sell all kinds of stuff after using this as a promotional tool. Google can only sell ads, and I don't see them reacting to this until it's proven to have made an impact worth countering.
You don't seem to be much a roulette guy.
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be excessively hyperbolic.
Unless we all agree to exclusively shout or ask questions or use unfinished sentences, I'd say there's still a lot of revenue potential.
Can't we just give the individual lawyers stupid patents, put them in a ring and say "Whoever wins the most patent litigations between you gets more patents!"?
shotgun on ".". Can't have sentences or domains without periods.
Neither I, nor anyone I know has ever complained about this. However, it's not the first time I've heard about this complaint. And my mind is starting to play tricks on me: I just "noticed" some flicker on an LCD monitor (fluorescent backlight) I've had for years.
I can't conclude whether or not the issue has any merit, but my preliminary conclusion is that discussing the issue tends to cause it.