I'm pretty sure that there are only about 100 apps that are really nice to have available on a phone, and more and more of them are going to be built into the base install. The rest are variations, or stupid.
I guess for developers it is nice to have a limited number of targets, but for users, the difference between 5,000 apps in the store and 50,000 apps in the store is pretty much nil. Especially users who don't need to install an app to use a web site.
Yes, prenatal care is probably not being well distributed in the United States. UNICEF puts Canada and Cuba at 5 infant deaths per 1000 births, with the United States at 7, after controlling for differences in reporting:
You will have to drill down yourself, they don't offer any way to link into the dataset, Goal 4, all countries. So that is a likely a significant difference, but I'm pretty sure it is not an unconscionable difference (an American concerned about infant mortality would still best spend their efforts trying to reduce it elsewhere, where rates are enormously higher).
Of course, given that I only said things about the availability of care, and nothing about the delivery of care, I'm not sure why you would expect what I said to address something that is likely quite related to the delivery of care.
I don't think there is any conspiracy among scientists.
I think they are humans and have human failings, and I think that being as open as possible with their data is one way to counter some of those failings.
Your comment reads like you have a lot of direct experience working on projects. Do you?
Well, licenses are still transferable, so their opinion probably doesn't need to matter.
I imagine that the legal apparatus in the U.S. would also, eventually, tend to side with the archivists (there are lots of judges that, in the event a lawyer came into their court to complain about a librarian making an archival copy of a 15 year software system that is no longer available for sale, would tell the lawyer to get bent, in approximately so many words).
No one is going to pay any attention to the guy who just writes a letter, so that is the wrong direction (but nice job trying to pigeonhole what I said). Of course you have to work to be a scientist. But once you start publishing conclusions that are based on some given set of data, it only increases your credibility if you are willing to actually share that data, and discuss the messy details of how you obtained it.
So the point is that things like institutional inertia and hoarding need to be minimized, not blithely ignored. So if a guy wants to go over some research data and check it for correctness, he can. Even if he is just some computer programmer:
(By institutional inertia, I mean the thing where there is actually a science establishment that ends up directing where funding ends up, simply by existing; there probably isn't any way of eliminating it, but "he doesn't have a PHD so he won't be able to do anything with it anyway" should always be treated as the bullshit it is)
I imagine that even in the worst botox cases, the scale of the damage is still completely different than in the face transplant procedure (and in many of the botox procedures, the nerve damage is nil).
Maintaining ivory towers isn't going to make public reactions to bluster any more robust.
(whereas release of the data can pretty much only increase serious scrutiny; Like anything involving humans, it will be messy at the edges, but that isn't a potential problem with it, it is something that comes with it, no matter what)
So people can just say whatever they want about him, with him having no recourse whatsoever (lest he make you think that maybe he really does have something to hide, if he objects to a newspaper publishing that he is a fraud)?
You need to throw a 'many' in that second paragraph. For people that can afford it, there is plenty of care to be had in the United States.
(Not that I can particularly afford it, but our problem isn't that there are no doctors, it is not that there is no medical technology, and it is not that there are no medical facilities, our problem is that using those things costs a lot of money)
How much history do you want to look at? Wandering tribes were pretty democratic, and if things weren't democratic enough for you, no one was going to stop you from wandering somewhere else.
I bet there are ways of getting a pretty excellent characterization simply by combining samples from several locations where you happen to have been. It might not hold up legally, but it would probably be perfectly usable.
And then there is the thing where I obsessively empty trash receptacles at some place you frequent, so that I can harvest some of your saliva.
Slashdot Mirror
Why?
I'm pretty sure that there are only about 100 apps that are really nice to have available on a phone, and more and more of them are going to be built into the base install. The rest are variations, or stupid.
I guess for developers it is nice to have a limited number of targets, but for users, the difference between 5,000 apps in the store and 50,000 apps in the store is pretty much nil. Especially users who don't need to install an app to use a web site.
Did she go back on a diet?
Yes, prenatal care is probably not being well distributed in the United States. UNICEF puts Canada and Cuba at 5 infant deaths per 1000 births, with the United States at 7, after controlling for differences in reporting:
http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/Data.aspx
You will have to drill down yourself, they don't offer any way to link into the dataset, Goal 4, all countries. So that is a likely a significant difference, but I'm pretty sure it is not an unconscionable difference (an American concerned about infant mortality would still best spend their efforts trying to reduce it elsewhere, where rates are enormously higher).
Of course, given that I only said things about the availability of care, and nothing about the delivery of care, I'm not sure why you would expect what I said to address something that is likely quite related to the delivery of care.
So compare your spending on energy 30 years ago to now, and the availability of said energy.
One has gone down right, while the other is pretty much the same? In the U.S., that has been done while the population grew by about 50%.
(It might be reasonable to compare your use today to someone of similar circumstances then)
And you also complain that residential solar is nearly economic.
I don't think there is any conspiracy among scientists.
I think they are humans and have human failings, and I think that being as open as possible with their data is one way to counter some of those failings.
Your comment reads like you have a lot of direct experience working on projects. Do you?
I'm all for it, if you pay for it.
Well, licenses are still transferable, so their opinion probably doesn't need to matter.
I imagine that the legal apparatus in the U.S. would also, eventually, tend to side with the archivists (there are lots of judges that, in the event a lawyer came into their court to complain about a librarian making an archival copy of a 15 year software system that is no longer available for sale, would tell the lawyer to get bent, in approximately so many words).
No one is going to pay any attention to the guy who just writes a letter, so that is the wrong direction (but nice job trying to pigeonhole what I said). Of course you have to work to be a scientist. But once you start publishing conclusions that are based on some given set of data, it only increases your credibility if you are willing to actually share that data, and discuss the messy details of how you obtained it.
So the point is that things like institutional inertia and hoarding need to be minimized, not blithely ignored. So if a guy wants to go over some research data and check it for correctness, he can. Even if he is just some computer programmer:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7028418.ece
(By institutional inertia, I mean the thing where there is actually a science establishment that ends up directing where funding ends up, simply by existing; there probably isn't any way of eliminating it, but "he doesn't have a PHD so he won't be able to do anything with it anyway" should always be treated as the bullshit it is)
I don't see how it makes me any less original.
It doesn't necessarily increase scrutiny, it just is more likely to increase it than it is to decrease it.
As far as why do you give the deniers an easy time? Because that's the way science should be done, that's why.
I imagine that even in the worst botox cases, the scale of the damage is still completely different than in the face transplant procedure (and in many of the botox procedures, the nerve damage is nil).
Maintaining ivory towers isn't going to make public reactions to bluster any more robust.
(whereas release of the data can pretty much only increase serious scrutiny; Like anything involving humans, it will be messy at the edges, but that isn't a potential problem with it, it is something that comes with it, no matter what)
So people can just say whatever they want about him, with him having no recourse whatsoever (lest he make you think that maybe he really does have something to hide, if he objects to a newspaper publishing that he is a fraud)?
Google Checkout seems to have a few users...
Right, because anti-rejection drugs and a face full of nerve damage are waaaaay better than a few wrinkles.
You need to throw a 'many' in that second paragraph. For people that can afford it, there is plenty of care to be had in the United States.
(Not that I can particularly afford it, but our problem isn't that there are no doctors, it is not that there is no medical technology, and it is not that there are no medical facilities, our problem is that using those things costs a lot of money)
It said up to 8 hours, it didn't say he regularly hit that mark.
Sure they would. But the other 299,999,950 of us need to decide if such attacks warrant as much attention as, say, car accidents.
The U.S. has more watts of nuclear than any other country.
We also have more watts in general, so the above sort of gets lost in comparisons.
Do you mean that it was connecting over 802.11g, or do you mean that you were doing transfers at that bandwidth?
If it is the latter, you must have a nice AP at your house.
They are storing it along with the GPS coordinates where it was located.
This allows software running on a device that can see the router to act as if it knows where it is located.
There are more than a few Amish that use cell phones.
How much history do you want to look at? Wandering tribes were pretty democratic, and if things weren't democratic enough for you, no one was going to stop you from wandering somewhere else.
Tom Clancy used an airplane as a missile.
(but he crashed it into a joint session of congress)
I bet there are ways of getting a pretty excellent characterization simply by combining samples from several locations where you happen to have been. It might not hold up legally, but it would probably be perfectly usable.
And then there is the thing where I obsessively empty trash receptacles at some place you frequent, so that I can harvest some of your saliva.