This is an error in the article. The researchers specifically did not study pesticide residues and this study has nothing to say on this issue. The conclusion of "no evidence of any extra health benefits" is one jumped to by the article author, not the reasearchers who did the study. It would be more accurate to say "this study shows that there are no health benefits from additional nutrients in organic food." This is not the same thing as the unsubstantiated claim "there are no health benefits from organic food," because a principal health benefit of organic food is the lower levels of toxic pesticide residues on and in organic food.
No one is claiming that we can look at every aspect in a single study. But when the BBC titles the article about the study, they cannot make claims about all those other aspects that were not studied. The title, "No Health Benefits to Organic Food," is grossly misleading because it gives the false impression that the study actually investigated the health of those who eat organic food. The study did not such thing. In particular, the study did not consider the issue of pesticide residues at all, something that most consumers consider a significant health benefit of organic foods.
That's not true, and it's another flaw in the design of the study. In brief, you can *always* account for a woman's offspring - after all, she's pregnant for 9 months and gives birth rather conspicuously. It is therefore pretty much impossible for a woman to hide one of her offspring. If she has a child, we know about it.
Men on the other hand can easily have offspring that no one knows about. In other words, this whole study is predicated on the spectacularly naive assumption that all children are the offspring of their legal fathers, which is known to be false. A small, but significant percentage of all children born are were fathered by someone other than their mother's husband. This means that *attractive* men really *do* have more children. It's just that they often have them by cuckolding other men.
This means that both attractive men and attractive women have more offspring.
It amazes me, the amount of technology we have today, and what we've chosen to do with it. It could have been so much more, but instead the worst possible solution won out the day...
Those wanting profit will always seek out the largest mass market, which means lowest common denominator solutions. Just as DOS and Windows were the LCD suckage we loved to hate in the desktop era, web apps are the LCD suckage we love to hate in the internet era.
Yes, things move on. But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing. For example, try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image (the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB+). Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation, transferring a full screen window's worth of the transformed data (~4MB) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed (where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous).
It would seem that the logical, non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing, the results of which are *not* large data sets, would be done remotely (i.e., in the "cloud") while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client (e.g., large image editing) is done locally. This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities, or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases.
The sustainable alternative (well at least in the short term until the culture crumbles completely due to mass idiocy) to paid quality journalism is unpaid shite journalism. This latter requires that the overwhelming majority of consumers of your news "product" are too stupid to tell the difference between good journalism and random crap the blogger up the street wrote. The steadily falling standards of journalism over the last couple of decades have paved the way for precisely this state of affairs. Television news in particular has become largely a collection of editorials (Fox News anyone?) with entertaining video related to the editorial running in the background.
So replacing expensive actual reporters with incompetent bloggers and cheap wire feeds is no problem when 60% of your audience, when asked where their own country, (i.e., the USA) is on a map of the world, will point out Brazil...
How will it make Gladwell look like a vacuous twit? Gladwell is the one arguing that business models based on providing free content don't magically work; they need to find some way to make the free content profitable. So if Google fails to make money from youtube Gladwell will be vindicated.
No widely spoken human natural language was "invented," Modern English included. Where do people come up with these things? Modern English evolved out of Middle English, just as Spanish evolved out of Latin, etc. Modern English was not "invented" in any meaningful sense of "invernted."
Yes. This suggests that a compressibility metric is a good inverse measure of a language's expressiveness. IOW, the more compressible the source is, the more the programmer has to repeat boilerplate code in that language. Expressive languages would not necessarily have the smallest code size, but they would have the smallest ratio of uncompressed source size to gzipped source size. It would be nice to see the submitter's graphs redone with code size replaced by:
This whole thread screams that C programmers spend far too much time thinking about raw execution speed, and far too little time thinking about time to market, maintainability, etc.
Ordinary Occam's Razor parsimony says that it is far more likely that multi-trillion dollar financial interests in fossil fuel use are actively manipulating public perception and government science (read Bush Administration), than that nickel and dime enterprises profiting from trading carbon credits have managed to dupe the overwhelming majority of scientists, the public, and all of the world's governments.
"Who benefits?" When we ask this simple question we see that the bias is very strong for denial of climate change because so many benefit so largely from denying that CO2 is involved.
We have had a fundamental given turned upside down here.
Not so much. What this finding challenges is the simplistic notion that the entire counter-current to the Gulf Stream runs along the Western Atlantic continental shelf. It turns out that the deep counter current is much more diffuse and spread out under the open North Atlantic.
This finding does *not* challenge the notion that the ocean currents are a mechanism for global heat transfer. It only shows that the exact workings of this mechanism is more complicated than thought, and that climate models need to incorporate this greater complexity to improve their accuracy.
Exactly. Clearly this guy is not full of himself but has a healthy respect for the size of the task he is taking on, and the importance of the input of others:
I have many more ideas to make the web-environment richer than the results I have actually implemented apart from UIzard. However it is so hard to do those things all by myself because I've never carried out or even joined an Open Source Project. I know nothing about it and I don't know how to make it work. I keep my eyes and ears open all the time. I am only 24 years old and still have so many things to learn. I still need to improve my ability. I have more ideas than I can actually work out. Thus, I need passionate developers younger or as young as me and also need expert developers who can share their knowledge, know-how and techniques. I am grateful to everyone around the world who showed interest in my work. This is an unforgettable and fruitful time of my life. Thanks again for your interview request and offer of free hosting support. (I will get in touch about the usage of hosting after consultation with others and as soon as I organize the community with the developers of Korea and around the world who are willing to participate in the UIzard project). I will do my best to make it well worth your interest.
Write good books, make good music, make interesting movies, and the money will flow in.
Why? Because you think it would be nice if the world worked this way?
The reality for many writers is that income streams are small and intermittent, and having one's work freely available on line for zero cost really does reduce income.
You don't get to make this choice for other authors. If you want to write a book and distribute it freely, go ahead. You don't have the right to give other people's property away just because you would want to share yours.
Freedom is about freedom of personal choice; it is not about being forced to give something away because somebody else thinks it would be a good choice.
Arguments of the form "group X doesn't want to hurt you, therefore technology Y is not dangerous to your freedom" completely miss the point; once technology Y is in place, it is waiting, ready for use by group Z which does want to restrict your civil rights.
The apparatus of a police state is dangerous even in a democracy because it makes it so much easier for some rogue element to end democracy by imposing a police state without free assembly, free speech, free practice of religion, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an error in the article. The researchers specifically did not study pesticide residues and this study has nothing to say on this issue. The conclusion of "no evidence of any extra health benefits" is one jumped to by the article author, not the reasearchers who did the study.
It would be more accurate to say "this study shows that there are no health benefits from additional nutrients in organic food." This is not the same thing as the unsubstantiated claim "there are no health benefits from organic food," because a principal health benefit of organic food is the lower levels of toxic pesticide residues on and in organic food.
No one is claiming that we can look at every aspect in a single study. But when the BBC titles the article about the study, they cannot make claims about all those other aspects that were not studied. The title, "No Health Benefits to Organic Food," is grossly misleading because it gives the false impression that the study actually investigated the health of those who eat organic food. The study did not such thing. In particular, the study did not consider the issue of pesticide residues at all, something that most consumers consider a significant health benefit of organic foods.
this
That's not true, and it's another flaw in the design of the study. In brief, you can *always* account for a woman's offspring - after all, she's pregnant for 9 months and gives birth rather conspicuously. It is therefore pretty much impossible for a woman to hide one of her offspring. If she has a child, we know about it.
Men on the other hand can easily have offspring that no one knows about. In other words, this whole study is predicated on the spectacularly naive assumption that all children are the offspring of their legal fathers, which is known to be false. A small, but significant percentage of all children born are were fathered by someone other than their mother's husband. This means that *attractive* men really *do* have more children. It's just that they often have them by cuckolding other men.
This means that both attractive men and attractive women have more offspring.
As long as you live in the fantasyland of zero network latency...
It amazes me, the amount of technology we have today, and what we've chosen to do with it. It could have been so much more, but instead the worst possible solution won out the day...
Those wanting profit will always seek out the largest mass market, which means lowest common denominator solutions. Just as DOS and Windows were the LCD suckage we loved to hate in the desktop era, web apps are the LCD suckage we love to hate in the internet era.
Yes, things move on. But please be aware that there is a whole class of applications that are simply inappropriate for cloud computing. For example, try any of the existing web based image editors on a large image (the sort a professional photographer routinely works with 35MB+). Although the server on the other end of the connection might be able to do the requested image manipulation, transferring a full screen window's worth of the transformed data (~4MB) over the network means this app is inherently slow compared to running it locally on even a laptop of modest speed (where displaying a full screen window from a buffer is essentially instantaneous).
It would seem that the logical, non-hype direction in which to move is a hybrid where some computing, the results of which are *not* large data sets, would be done remotely (i.e., in the "cloud") while computing which results in large data that must be displayed on the client (e.g., large image editing) is done locally. This suggests that augmenting existing desktop platforms with more cloud capabilities, or augmenting existing web-app platforms with local computing capabilities would be the proper superset that covers all bases.
A modern X11 implementation gives you:
As long as by "OS-independent" you mean "equally ugly and user unfriendly on all platforms," then, yes.
... think Apple CGL+Quartz.
Only uglier... and buggier
Exactly. Apparently something that is very, very old news in social science circles has just occurred to Hawking, so naturally, it must be a new idea, right?
Miranda: How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't!
Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. (The Tempest, Act V:Sc. 1, line 183-184)
OK; You're wrong and there's some perfectly innocuous purpose that you're missing. Instrument isolation comes to mind...
The sustainable alternative (well at least in the short term until the culture crumbles completely due to mass idiocy) to paid quality journalism is unpaid shite journalism. This latter requires that the overwhelming majority of consumers of your news "product" are too stupid to tell the difference between good journalism and random crap the blogger up the street wrote. The steadily falling standards of journalism over the last couple of decades have paved the way for precisely this state of affairs. Television news in particular has become largely a collection of editorials (Fox News anyone?) with entertaining video related to the editorial running in the background.
So replacing expensive actual reporters with incompetent bloggers and cheap wire feeds is no problem when 60% of your audience, when asked where their own country, (i.e., the USA) is on a map of the world, will point out Brazil...
RMS, is that you?
How will it make Gladwell look like a vacuous twit? Gladwell is the one arguing that business models based on providing free content don't magically work; they need to find some way to make the free content profitable. So if Google fails to make money from youtube Gladwell will be vindicated.
No widely spoken human natural language was "invented," Modern English included. Where do people come up with these things? Modern English evolved out of Middle English, just as Spanish evolved out of Latin, etc. Modern English was not "invented" in any meaningful sense of "invernted."
reference for WikiWeenies.
Yes. This suggests that a compressibility metric is a good inverse measure of a language's expressiveness. IOW, the more compressible the source is, the more the programmer has to repeat boilerplate code in that language. Expressive languages would not necessarily have the smallest code size, but they would have the smallest ratio of uncompressed source size to gzipped source size. It would be nice to see the submitter's graphs redone with code size replaced by:
code-size / gzipped-code-size
This whole thread screams that C programmers spend far too much time thinking about raw execution speed, and far too little time thinking about time to market, maintainability, etc.
Ordinary Occam's Razor parsimony says that it is far more likely that multi-trillion dollar financial interests in fossil fuel use are actively manipulating public perception and government science (read Bush Administration), than that nickel and dime enterprises profiting from trading carbon credits have managed to dupe the overwhelming majority of scientists, the public, and all of the world's governments.
"Who benefits?" When we ask this simple question we see that the bias is very strong for denial of climate change because so many benefit so largely from denying that CO2 is involved.
We have had a fundamental given turned upside down here.
Not so much. What this finding challenges is the simplistic notion that the entire counter-current to the Gulf Stream runs along the Western Atlantic continental shelf. It turns out that the deep counter current is much more diffuse and spread out under the open North Atlantic.
This finding does *not* challenge the notion that the ocean currents are a mechanism for global heat transfer. It only shows that the exact workings of this mechanism is more complicated than thought, and that climate models need to incorporate this greater complexity to improve their accuracy.
Exactly. Clearly this guy is not full of himself but has a healthy respect for the size of the task he is taking on, and the importance of the input of others:
I have many more ideas to make the web-environment richer than the results I have actually implemented apart from UIzard. However it is so hard to do those things all by myself because I've never carried out or even joined an Open Source Project. I know nothing about it and I don't know how to make it work. I keep my eyes and ears open all the time. I am only 24 years old and still have so many things to learn. I still need to improve my ability. I have more ideas than I can actually work out. Thus, I need passionate developers younger or as young as me and also need expert developers who can share their knowledge, know-how and techniques. I am grateful to everyone around the world who showed interest in my work. This is an unforgettable and fruitful time of my life. Thanks again for your interview request and offer of free hosting support. (I will get in touch about the usage of hosting after consultation with others and as soon as I organize the community with the developers of Korea and around the world who are willing to participate in the UIzard project). I will do my best to make it well worth your interest.
Write good books, make good music, make interesting movies, and the money will flow in.
Why? Because you think it would be nice if the world worked this way?
The reality for many writers is that income streams are small and intermittent, and having one's work freely available on line for zero cost really does reduce income.
You don't get to make this choice for other authors. If you want to write a book and distribute it freely, go ahead. You don't have the right to give other people's property away just because you would want to share yours.
Freedom is about freedom of personal choice; it is not about being forced to give something away because somebody else thinks it would be a good choice.
The Lathe of Heaven anybody?
double bind here. those who speak do not know. those who know do not speak - they're under NDA.
Arguments of the form "group X doesn't want to hurt you, therefore technology Y is not dangerous to your freedom" completely miss the point; once technology Y is in place, it is waiting, ready for use by group Z which does want to restrict your civil rights.
The apparatus of a police state is dangerous even in a democracy because it makes it so much easier for some rogue element to end democracy by imposing a police state without free assembly, free speech, free practice of religion, etc.