Sometimes we have no way of knowing that the test was a false positive, that's the definition of a false positive. Not only that, measuring less often doesn't mean that you won't catch the cancer, it means you'll catch it later. If the negative effects from the number of acted-upon false positives outweighs the benefits of the true-positives being found earlier, it means it is better to measure less frequently. Like GP, you're making the assumption that there is no such thing as a false positive, and/or that false positives never get acted upon, both assumptions which are provably false.
The social analogy is how soon we should stop a 'terrorist group' into their evil plans for destruction. Should we wait until they call a friend about making a bomb, should we wait until they get the plans, or should we nip it in the bud and just wait until they make friends? Should we wait until they buy supplies for the bomb, should we wait until they have a working bomb, or should we just take them out with a drone the moment they start talking about making one? Or should we wait until they're about to set it off, ie. the only point when it is actually dangerous.
At some point, the intrusion to society outweighs the additional risk of the terrorists being successful, because you start pulling in high-school students doing science projects and farmers buying fertilizer for their crops. Measuring less often means the number of people affected when your measurements are wrong is lower.
Of course, if you think you can design a cheap cancer measurement system with 0% false positives, be my guest;-)
I take that back, they did simulate it. But they used a finite element type model, not a closed-form equation type model, which doesn't really improve our understanding of how stuff works.
Just because they are at a "heightened risk of thyroid cancer" doesn't mean that they are going to get cancer. It means that they are more likely to get it than people who weren't exposed to the radiation. Only 2000 people at a heightened risk, as a result of a nuclear power plant being hit by a tsunami? Not bad, I say.
Next time, don't build a nuclear power plant where it can be hit by a tsunami, though. That was just stupid.
Troll much? All the bitcoin miners use AMD OpenCL for their GPGPU properties. Why? Because they outperform NVidia. You are making sweeping statements with nothing to back you up.
It's not that we don't understand *why* something like a genetic-algorithm designed antenna works so well. We can evaluate its performance using Maxwell's equations and say, "Yes, it works well." without ever having to build the thing. What we don't have is a set of guidelines or 'rules of thumb' that can result in an antenna design that works just as well.
The difference is that the computer evaluates a billion antennas for us, doing some sort of high-dimensional genetic optimisation on the various lengths of the antenna components. It doesn't 'understand' why it gets the results it does. We do, because we understand Maxwell's equations and we understand how genetic optimisation works. But Maxwell's equations only work for evaluating a design, not for giving a tweak which will improve it. And we're dealing with too many variables that are unknown to have a closed-form solution.
As for this algorithm, they basically did the same thing. They defined a fitness function and then repeatedly varied the code they were using to find the best sequence of code. However, unlike the antenna analogy, they used actual equipment to evaluate the fitness function, not just a model. This means that they don't have an accurate model, which means that your complaint that we don't know why this works is entirely valid, and the antenna analogy is not =)
The thing is, ad-supported apps need network access, and if you could disable the network access permission then you'd essentially be pirating the app. Of course, nothing stops you from using DroidWall to block it manually, but that requires you to root the device, which means that Google isn't *enabling* it, and as such they don't have to endure the wrath of angry app-developers.
Which is why Google doesn't allow you to pick and choose at install, even if they *do* tell you what permissions are needed.
Not just that, it's a feedback loop. If you price it low enough, there won't be momentum behind the piracy people to make piracy an easy option. This adds a 'price' to piracy, making your product more attractive still.
You're sending the message that you want a phone that can be flashed by the user without having to hack it. That's one of the main differences between a Nexus and most other Android phones...
You're ignoring the side effects from treatment of people who didn't have the condition, and the suffering they go through. In the breast cancer analogy, chemotherapy is terrible: it causes your hair to fall out, you lose months or years of life to something that wasn't necessary. The alternatives are radiation therapy and mastectomy, which are worse. So how many people wrongly getting their breasts removed, or getting chemo, is worth saving a single person's life?
This is true in military and intelligence situations as well. If law enforcement starts having negative side effects (think TSA nude scanners and groping, SWAT teams being called as pranks etc) then the negative effects on society are worse than the actual problems they would be preventing. Not only that, but if they aren't seen as helping, people will become less cooperative to law enforcement officials, which will further break down social peace.
Let's judge Musk by his track record, not somebody else's, OK?
1. PayPal 2. Tesla 3. SpaceX
So far 3 out of 3 are successful, or at least looking that way. As to what will happen in the future, who knows? I don't, and you certainly don't either.
If we were able to manufacture the rocket propellant in space, from say water from the moon and split into H/O using solar power, it wouldn't be quite as bad. After all, only a small fraction of the rocket weight is the actual rocket, most is the fuel.
But in Indian culture the hierarchy is class based, not age based. Thus, two pilots are always equal (or at least close to it) by the fact that they are both pilots, irrespective of whether one is much older than the other.
So you have a big issue with Snowden getting some publicity over THE GOVERNMENT SPYING ON PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY WARRENTS AND WITHOUT ANY CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT but you're giving every single musician, movie star and politician a free pass for making a big deal about what they ate for breakfast. Yeah, totally consistent view you've got there.
Slashdot Mirror
Earth didn't always have life on it either. Sounds like a great plan!
Drug companies do this, find a new use for a drug to extend a patent.
Sometimes we have no way of knowing that the test was a false positive, that's the definition of a false positive. Not only that, measuring less often doesn't mean that you won't catch the cancer, it means you'll catch it later. If the negative effects from the number of acted-upon false positives outweighs the benefits of the true-positives being found earlier, it means it is better to measure less frequently. Like GP, you're making the assumption that there is no such thing as a false positive, and/or that false positives never get acted upon, both assumptions which are provably false.
The social analogy is how soon we should stop a 'terrorist group' into their evil plans for destruction. Should we wait until they call a friend about making a bomb, should we wait until they get the plans, or should we nip it in the bud and just wait until they make friends? Should we wait until they buy supplies for the bomb, should we wait until they have a working bomb, or should we just take them out with a drone the moment they start talking about making one? Or should we wait until they're about to set it off, ie. the only point when it is actually dangerous.
At some point, the intrusion to society outweighs the additional risk of the terrorists being successful, because you start pulling in high-school students doing science projects and farmers buying fertilizer for their crops. Measuring less often means the number of people affected when your measurements are wrong is lower.
Of course, if you think you can design a cheap cancer measurement system with 0% false positives, be my guest ;-)
The GP was claiming that AMD stuff sucks in every situation. I was just pointing out that they were wrong.
And hashing is really important, particularly for 'new-age' languages like Python and JavaScript.
I take that back, they did simulate it. But they used a finite element type model, not a closed-form equation type model, which doesn't really improve our understanding of how stuff works.
Just because they are at a "heightened risk of thyroid cancer" doesn't mean that they are going to get cancer. It means that they are more likely to get it than people who weren't exposed to the radiation. Only 2000 people at a heightened risk, as a result of a nuclear power plant being hit by a tsunami? Not bad, I say.
Next time, don't build a nuclear power plant where it can be hit by a tsunami, though. That was just stupid.
Troll much? All the bitcoin miners use AMD OpenCL for their GPGPU properties. Why? Because they outperform NVidia. You are making sweeping statements with nothing to back you up.
It's not that we don't understand *why* something like a genetic-algorithm designed antenna works so well. We can evaluate its performance using Maxwell's equations and say, "Yes, it works well." without ever having to build the thing. What we don't have is a set of guidelines or 'rules of thumb' that can result in an antenna design that works just as well.
The difference is that the computer evaluates a billion antennas for us, doing some sort of high-dimensional genetic optimisation on the various lengths of the antenna components. It doesn't 'understand' why it gets the results it does. We do, because we understand Maxwell's equations and we understand how genetic optimisation works. But Maxwell's equations only work for evaluating a design, not for giving a tweak which will improve it. And we're dealing with too many variables that are unknown to have a closed-form solution.
As for this algorithm, they basically did the same thing. They defined a fitness function and then repeatedly varied the code they were using to find the best sequence of code. However, unlike the antenna analogy, they used actual equipment to evaluate the fitness function, not just a model. This means that they don't have an accurate model, which means that your complaint that we don't know why this works is entirely valid, and the antenna analogy is not =)
No, but you can see before you install what permissions it is going to need.
The thing is, ad-supported apps need network access, and if you could disable the network access permission then you'd essentially be pirating the app. Of course, nothing stops you from using DroidWall to block it manually, but that requires you to root the device, which means that Google isn't *enabling* it, and as such they don't have to endure the wrath of angry app-developers.
Which is why Google doesn't allow you to pick and choose at install, even if they *do* tell you what permissions are needed.
That doesn't say anything, if the NSA was doing MITM they'd probably bounce the bad cert to make it look like everything was fine.
Yeah, it won't kill you, but the behaviour 3 vodka/redbulls induces might cause you to kill yourself.
Then it would be more efficient to run another closed-cycle turbine based on ammonia or something. Peltier-style stuff is *really* inefficient.
Not just that, it's a feedback loop. If you price it low enough, there won't be momentum behind the piracy people to make piracy an easy option. This adds a 'price' to piracy, making your product more attractive still.
You're sending the message that you want a phone that can be flashed by the user without having to hack it. That's one of the main differences between a Nexus and most other Android phones...
Goat balls too, or so I hear.
Get a Nexus. Flash it with Cyanogenmod. Be free with all the features you need. Unless, you know, they decide to tap your line at the cell tower.
You're ignoring the side effects from treatment of people who didn't have the condition, and the suffering they go through. In the breast cancer analogy, chemotherapy is terrible: it causes your hair to fall out, you lose months or years of life to something that wasn't necessary. The alternatives are radiation therapy and mastectomy, which are worse. So how many people wrongly getting their breasts removed, or getting chemo, is worth saving a single person's life?
This is true in military and intelligence situations as well. If law enforcement starts having negative side effects (think TSA nude scanners and groping, SWAT teams being called as pranks etc) then the negative effects on society are worse than the actual problems they would be preventing. Not only that, but if they aren't seen as helping, people will become less cooperative to law enforcement officials, which will further break down social peace.
Let's judge Musk by his track record, not somebody else's, OK?
1. PayPal
2. Tesla
3. SpaceX
So far 3 out of 3 are successful, or at least looking that way. As to what will happen in the future, who knows? I don't, and you certainly don't either.
What's the point of 3D printing then? The whole advantage of 3D printing is that every single item can be completely different.
Sorry, but those jobs will be done by robots the moment they are built.
The only thing we have which robots don't is our brains. If we don't use them we have nothing to offer.
If we were able to manufacture the rocket propellant in space, from say water from the moon and split into H/O using solar power, it wouldn't be quite as bad. After all, only a small fraction of the rocket weight is the actual rocket, most is the fuel.
But in Indian culture the hierarchy is class based, not age based. Thus, two pilots are always equal (or at least close to it) by the fact that they are both pilots, irrespective of whether one is much older than the other.
Isn't it your prerogative then to ensure that nobody accesses any HIPAA-related documents via any UK internet servers, as per the GCHQ revelations?
So you have a big issue with Snowden getting some publicity over THE GOVERNMENT SPYING ON PEOPLE WITHOUT ANY WARRENTS AND WITHOUT ANY CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT but you're giving every single musician, movie star and politician a free pass for making a big deal about what they ate for breakfast. Yeah, totally consistent view you've got there.