Ok. Stop thinking from the penguin perspective for a second ('cause I'm with you, and I'd like to see what you say happen.)
Do you support every browser in existence perfectly for every web app you write? Do you have support for lynx? If not, why? Maybe there's a case to be made where only 0.1% of people use lynx, and you could write another cool application instead of building in support for what is essentially an edge case.
I have no doubt MS feels the same way about porting DX to linux boxes.
Money only makes you happy to a degree. Money can buy your way into food, shelter, and clothing. It can buy you travel, luxury, and some piece of mind.
You're comfortable, and that's all you can get. If you talked to a homeless man, he'd be HAPPY to be in your place.
Happiness is fleeting. Nobody is ever ALWAYS happy. This is actually part of the human condition - the fact that you aren't happy (but want to be) is what keeps you moving forward to discover and achieve. It's the way we're wired, so find ways to get your doses of happyness, but don't think that you'll be able to pin it all on one thing.
Life is more than work. If your job sucks, then take the same great skills to an interesting enviornment - a big firm might be boring, a small startup company might be fun. Or you could try acedemia. Sure, there's a pay cut involved, but I think it's totally work it.
And yet VMWare Fusion has DX8.1 support, which is a huge step in the right direction. Also, beta 3 is WAY faster than older versions.
I have both Fusion and Parallels installed on my MBP. Both are nice in different ways. I'm looking forward to them both evolving and growning in the near future.
Thank you. I'm feeling too lazy to write out a whole flame of this summary right now (and I should go read the paper before I really lay into it), but that's how I'd sum this up. Sure, chimps and humans are 99% similar, and we've already noted a ton of differences in the literature. What makes this gene in particular more interesting than say...FOXP (which is believed to be responsible for speech.)
The genome is completely mapped. Trying to figure out what a mutation that seems to increase your risk by a few percent does, and how to treat that is not so simple. It's the line of work I'm in, and we just had a large meeting last week and talked about how the route from a mutation like this (especially in a gene desert where you can't point to a specific protein change) to a therapeutic is incredibly difficult.
On your topic of removing 'problematic inherited conditions', I think that's actually a disservice to the entire population to make the human race much more uniform. If you want a robust species, you retain as much genetic diversity as possible. For example, diabetes is a problematic trait in modern society, but when you have large feast/famine cycles (say 10,000 years ago), it's actually a very useful trait for survival. If you wipe out things that are bad now (and this doesn't even take into account the richness and complexity of pathways and n*m interactions) you're potentially hurting yourself for the future.
All of that information is in the second link? RTFA? I know, I know, it's slashdot, so you're expected to not read the article. Or are you just complaining about the summary?
Yeah. You can render data. But you need to do analysis to determine how to render data. It's more complicated than picking where to draw each pixel. I see there are tools to export Excel into flash, what's the big deal there?
The examples I can find in flash are 1-2 liners in R. Seriously, plotting a bar graph or pie graph or scatter plot is 2 lines (1 line input the data, 1 line to plot the graph.) Now, do something complicated and interesting as shown above. Do a multi-dimensonal plot. Do a box and whiskers plot (again, a 1 liner in R) that calculates medians, quartiles, etc.
Unless you're just doing "I could punch that out in excel in 3 minutes" style graphs.
So, I researched your flash suggestion. Did you even click on the link I provided before you said "Oh, flash can do it!"
Remember how programmers always talk about using the right tool for the right job?
If you want to do something like graphing, then why not learn a language like R, where you can easily and interactively create amazing visuals in very little time? I write code in Java, python, bash, and interact with Oracle and MySQL database. R fits in as a nice way to visualize data, and it's very easy to script up solutions that you can plug into your programming pipeline.
You can take that even further selection: If a trait makes you more likely to have children early in life, but to die when you're past your child rearing years, then it's an advantage to have that trait, even though it kills you at a time when most of us still want to be alive.
There are now about 30 - 60 minutes of commercials before the film? The sound is jacked up to 11 in many theaters (I've been bringing earplugs to theaters in the last year, to avoid losing my hearing in the rare case I want to go to a show.) There are a painful number of shitty previews. Cell phones now are common, and people refuse to get off of them during movies.
On top of all that, the cost of movies (and especially concessions) has skyrocketed. I think tickets are now 10-11 in my area for a prime time show, drinks are $5, and I don't want to think about the popcorn.
To contrast, getting your own sound and video set up at home for the big screen experience has dropped significantly in price the last few years as the market for projectors (and large screen direct view TVs) has grown. You can now get a home theater setup for a relatively low cost, and have DVDs delivered to your house.
The only place the theater is 'better' is that they are the first place to get the latest releases. I guess Vudu is trying to change that, and remove the last advantage the large theater has over the home theater.
Same situation, but 1280x720 resolution (sanyo Z1), and a 'free with projector' 100 inch screen, for $1200.
This stuff really isn't that difficult to set up. These days I can even run it from my macbook pro, if you don't want to have a dedicated computer in the room.
Maybe this is why? Even if the metaphor isn't horrible, the delivery was:
Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
I just attended a talk by Jeffrey Sachs, who is an economist who works on scaling up public health for low income settings. The interesting proposal he put forth was that poor people (surprise?) don't have any money, so it's not like they are part of the market. The market will ignore them for as long as possible, and since they aren't able to have any of their needs met, they can't pull themselves out of poverty.
His point is that the market is nice (he likes markets for a lot of situations) but it doesn't solve all of our issues.
The reason herbal drugs aren't classified as true "drugs" is because nobody's done double-blind studies to prove their efficacy. If they did, then you'd KNOW these herbal treatments were crap, instead of just suspecting it.
Some of us refuse to go lower than Valrhona, usually in the 60-70% cocoa, with Dark Chocolate Noir Orange 64% Cocoa being our favorite (purchased in 1/2 lb bars.)
Why eat shitty chocolate when you can have good stuff? My SO finds that if we buy crappy chocolate, she just eats more of it and isn't satisfied. Good chocolate like the above satisfies her in an ounce or two (or three) serving size, so she eats less and enjoys more.
I work in the US, I haven't had to take a drug test since I went professional 10 years ago. I've worked both in industry and academia as a scientist and programmer. My impression is that they could care less, as long as I keep producing results.
Natural selection and speciation are two different processes. Did you know that there's strong evidence that natural selection acted on humans in the northern part of europe that allowed them to drink milk into adulthood? It was so advantageous to drink milk in cold climates where calories were scarce that it highly effected survival rates, and the genetic evidence of that still exists in the descendants of that region.
Yes, forced breeding is not evolution. You miss my point.
One thing that was console dependent was the size of the levels. The original had some pretty large levels that were continuous (no loading time), and added to immersion. The sequal had much smaller levels with choke points to connect them together, and the main reason for that was the memory size of the xbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex:_Invisible_Wa r
Every time there's a story on evolution on slashdot, I get to read lots of posts that are about as coherent as an evolutionist making hand waving motions to explain iptables. As someone in the middle: software enginner, bioinformatics, classically trained in population genetics, these are some of the most painful slashdot stories to read.
Given all that, I'd like to read the paper and see exactly *what* genes are were shown to be 'more evolved' in chimps. I've read a lot of papers and talks comparing chimps and humans (most recently James Noonan's talk on comparison of Neanderthal, chimp, and human sequences), and we often talk about the genes where humans have much higher rates of change, like FOXP (believed to be highly related to language ability.) We know well that chimps have much more highly evolved reproductive organs/systems than we do, but the question is - is that very interesting to us? Is what makes us interesting how we reproduce (and how well/efficiently we do), or other interesting phenotypes that we have compared to chimps.
Just playing the numbers game and saying more is better is interesting for getting headlines, but it's not the whole story.
The time frame for this is 6 million years (since the human-chimp divergence.) How long have we been meaningfully been manipulating our enviornment in a way that blunts the forces of natural selection? Let's be generous and say...10,000 years? That's 1/600th of the time, and your hypothesis is that all of the 'extra' chimp evolution has occurred in that period of time?
It just doesn't make any sense. I understand your ideas about how humans (in 1st world countries, anyway) are much less subjected to some obvious forms of natural selection like predation by other animals, but it just hasn't been long enough to be meaningful.
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."
if your supposedly secure support site accepts "xx" and "ss" and "User" as valid logins to access support documents and what appears to be actual product downloads... well, what the hell?
Please let me know what your algorithm is for a valid user name. As far as I know, they are free text (which seems perfectly valid.) As for the other information, it would pass your typical regex for validation. If oracle gets a phone number, should they call it to validate that the person has the same information as the login gave. Do you run a website that does something similar, and has the same number of hits the Oracle website does?
I appreciate a holy-than-thou attitude, but please tell me what site YOU are in charge of the security for (and if I can then pass in crap like the above, then you're in for a nice big plate of humble pie, slashdot style.) Alternatively, you're talking out your ass.
You should be able to explain things in simple terms, but for those of us familiar with the intermediate/complex stuff, we just don't have the time to hear explainations from the ground up every time. If I want to work with genomic data, you don't have to explain central dogma to me every time you are going to get into the topic.
These complex words are just shortcuts to sets of related knowledge. If you don't know certain key words (not acronyms, but words), I'll have an idea of what you don't know. For example, if I say relational database, and you pull out an excel file, I'll know you're not the architect I'm looking for.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok. Stop thinking from the penguin perspective for a second ('cause I'm with you, and I'd like to see what you say happen.)
Do you support every browser in existence perfectly for every web app you write? Do you have support for lynx? If not, why? Maybe there's a case to be made where only 0.1% of people use lynx, and you could write another cool application instead of building in support for what is essentially an edge case.
I have no doubt MS feels the same way about porting DX to linux boxes.
Money only makes you happy to a degree. Money can buy your way into food, shelter, and clothing. It can buy you travel, luxury, and some piece of mind.
You're comfortable, and that's all you can get. If you talked to a homeless man, he'd be HAPPY to be in your place.
Happiness is fleeting. Nobody is ever ALWAYS happy. This is actually part of the human condition - the fact that you aren't happy (but want to be) is what keeps you moving forward to discover and achieve. It's the way we're wired, so find ways to get your doses of happyness, but don't think that you'll be able to pin it all on one thing.
Life is more than work. If your job sucks, then take the same great skills to an interesting enviornment - a big firm might be boring, a small startup company might be fun. Or you could try acedemia. Sure, there's a pay cut involved, but I think it's totally work it.
And yet VMWare Fusion has DX8.1 support, which is a huge step in the right direction. Also, beta 3 is WAY faster than older versions.
I have both Fusion and Parallels installed on my MBP. Both are nice in different ways. I'm looking forward to them both evolving and growning in the near future.
Thank you. I'm feeling too lazy to write out a whole flame of this summary right now (and I should go read the paper before I really lay into it), but that's how I'd sum this up. Sure, chimps and humans are 99% similar, and we've already noted a ton of differences in the literature. What makes this gene in particular more interesting than say...FOXP (which is believed to be responsible for speech.)
The genome is completely mapped. Trying to figure out what a mutation that seems to increase your risk by a few percent does, and how to treat that is not so simple. It's the line of work I'm in, and we just had a large meeting last week and talked about how the route from a mutation like this (especially in a gene desert where you can't point to a specific protein change) to a therapeutic is incredibly difficult.
On your topic of removing 'problematic inherited conditions', I think that's actually a disservice to the entire population to make the human race much more uniform. If you want a robust species, you retain as much genetic diversity as possible. For example, diabetes is a problematic trait in modern society, but when you have large feast/famine cycles (say 10,000 years ago), it's actually a very useful trait for survival. If you wipe out things that are bad now (and this doesn't even take into account the richness and complexity of pathways and n*m interactions) you're potentially hurting yourself for the future.
All of that information is in the second link? RTFA? I know, I know, it's slashdot, so you're expected to not read the article. Or are you just complaining about the summary?
Yeah. You can render data. But you need to do analysis to determine how to render data. It's more complicated than picking where to draw each pixel. I see there are tools to export Excel into flash, what's the big deal there?
The examples I can find in flash are 1-2 liners in R. Seriously, plotting a bar graph or pie graph or scatter plot is 2 lines (1 line input the data, 1 line to plot the graph.) Now, do something complicated and interesting as shown above. Do a multi-dimensonal plot. Do a box and whiskers plot (again, a 1 liner in R) that calculates medians, quartiles, etc.
Unless you're just doing "I could punch that out in excel in 3 minutes" style graphs.
So, I researched your flash suggestion. Did you even click on the link I provided before you said "Oh, flash can do it!"
Remember how programmers always talk about using the right tool for the right job?
If you want to do something like graphing, then why not learn a language like R, where you can easily and interactively create amazing visuals in very little time? I write code in Java, python, bash, and interact with Oracle and MySQL database. R fits in as a nice way to visualize data, and it's very easy to script up solutions that you can plug into your programming pipeline.
Check out http://addictedtor.free.fr/graphiques/index.php for examples (with source code)
You can take that even further selection: If a trait makes you more likely to have children early in life, but to die when you're past your child rearing years, then it's an advantage to have that trait, even though it kills you at a time when most of us still want to be alive.
There are now about 30 - 60 minutes of commercials before the film? The sound is jacked up to 11 in many theaters (I've been bringing earplugs to theaters in the last year, to avoid losing my hearing in the rare case I want to go to a show.) There are a painful number of shitty previews. Cell phones now are common, and people refuse to get off of them during movies.
On top of all that, the cost of movies (and especially concessions) has skyrocketed. I think tickets are now 10-11 in my area for a prime time show, drinks are $5, and I don't want to think about the popcorn.
To contrast, getting your own sound and video set up at home for the big screen experience has dropped significantly in price the last few years as the market for projectors (and large screen direct view TVs) has grown. You can now get a home theater setup for a relatively low cost, and have DVDs delivered to your house.
The only place the theater is 'better' is that they are the first place to get the latest releases. I guess Vudu is trying to change that, and remove the last advantage the large theater has over the home theater.
Same situation, but 1280x720 resolution (sanyo Z1), and a 'free with projector' 100 inch screen, for $1200.
This stuff really isn't that difficult to set up. These days I can even run it from my macbook pro, if you don't want to have a dedicated computer in the room.
From wikipedia.
I just attended a talk by Jeffrey Sachs, who is an economist who works on scaling up public health for low income settings. The interesting proposal he put forth was that poor people (surprise?) don't have any money, so it's not like they are part of the market. The market will ignore them for as long as possible, and since they aren't able to have any of their needs met, they can't pull themselves out of poverty.
His point is that the market is nice (he likes markets for a lot of situations) but it doesn't solve all of our issues.
If I had mod points, they would be yours.
The reason herbal drugs aren't classified as true "drugs" is because nobody's done double-blind studies to prove their efficacy. If they did, then you'd KNOW these herbal treatments were crap, instead of just suspecting it.
Some of us refuse to go lower than Valrhona, usually in the 60-70% cocoa, with Dark Chocolate Noir Orange 64% Cocoa being our favorite (purchased in 1/2 lb bars.)
Why eat shitty chocolate when you can have good stuff? My SO finds that if we buy crappy chocolate, she just eats more of it and isn't satisfied. Good chocolate like the above satisfies her in an ounce or two (or three) serving size, so she eats less and enjoys more.
I work in the US, I haven't had to take a drug test since I went professional 10 years ago. I've worked both in industry and academia as a scientist and programmer. My impression is that they could care less, as long as I keep producing results.
Natural selection and speciation are two different processes. Did you know that there's strong evidence that natural selection acted on humans in the northern part of europe that allowed them to drink milk into adulthood? It was so advantageous to drink milk in cold climates where calories were scarce that it highly effected survival rates, and the genetic evidence of that still exists in the descendants of that region.
Yes, forced breeding is not evolution. You miss my point.
One thing that was console dependent was the size of the levels. The original had some pretty large levels that were continuous (no loading time), and added to immersion. The sequal had much smaller levels with choke points to connect them together, and the main reason for that was the memory size of the xbox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_Ex:_Invisible_Wa r
Every time there's a story on evolution on slashdot, I get to read lots of posts that are about as coherent as an evolutionist making hand waving motions to explain iptables. As someone in the middle: software enginner, bioinformatics, classically trained in population genetics, these are some of the most painful slashdot stories to read.
Given all that, I'd like to read the paper and see exactly *what* genes are were shown to be 'more evolved' in chimps. I've read a lot of papers and talks comparing chimps and humans (most recently James Noonan's talk on comparison of Neanderthal, chimp, and human sequences), and we often talk about the genes where humans have much higher rates of change, like FOXP (believed to be highly related to language ability.) We know well that chimps have much more highly evolved reproductive organs/systems than we do, but the question is - is that very interesting to us? Is what makes us interesting how we reproduce (and how well/efficiently we do), or other interesting phenotypes that we have compared to chimps.
Just playing the numbers game and saying more is better is interesting for getting headlines, but it's not the whole story.
Or, to sum up:
"Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good. Every sperm is needed, in your neighborhood!"
The time frame for this is 6 million years (since the human-chimp divergence.) How long have we been meaningfully been manipulating our enviornment in a way that blunts the forces of natural selection? Let's be generous and say...10,000 years? That's 1/600th of the time, and your hypothesis is that all of the 'extra' chimp evolution has occurred in that period of time?
It just doesn't make any sense. I understand your ideas about how humans (in 1st world countries, anyway) are much less subjected to some obvious forms of natural selection like predation by other animals, but it just hasn't been long enough to be meaningful.
And yes, IAAPG (population geneticist)
Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."
-Natural Born Killers
Please let me know what your algorithm is for a valid user name. As far as I know, they are free text (which seems perfectly valid.) As for the other information, it would pass your typical regex for validation. If oracle gets a phone number, should they call it to validate that the person has the same information as the login gave. Do you run a website that does something similar, and has the same number of hits the Oracle website does?
I appreciate a holy-than-thou attitude, but please tell me what site YOU are in charge of the security for (and if I can then pass in crap like the above, then you're in for a nice big plate of humble pie, slashdot style.) Alternatively, you're talking out your ass.
Wow. Every *single person* at the place where I work is expected to be in your minority. What's more interesting is that they are.
You should be able to explain things in simple terms, but for those of us familiar with the intermediate/complex stuff, we just don't have the time to hear explainations from the ground up every time. If I want to work with genomic data, you don't have to explain central dogma to me every time you are going to get into the topic.
These complex words are just shortcuts to sets of related knowledge. If you don't know certain key words (not acronyms, but words), I'll have an idea of what you don't know. For example, if I say relational database, and you pull out an excel file, I'll know you're not the architect I'm looking for.