What I would like is for nVidia (and ATI) to start making lower power consumption a big goal for their new products. Can't we leave the era of 100-110Watts being the norm for new graphics card such as the GeForce 7800 GTX?
"Around the year 1000 for example, it was much warmer than today. There's a reason why "Greenland" is called that: it had thawed and the Vikings could colonize and farm it.
Then it cooled off some time later"
The parent post is badly misinformed. Please get your facts correct. The ice on Greenland did not thaw around the year 1000. The ice has been there for over 400000 years. Drill an ice core and, like tree rings, you can count the annual "rings" in the core, giving the age of the ice at the base of the core as 100k-400k years depending on the location. The rings are alternating transparent and translucent layers of ice. Every winter heavy snowfall creates a thick new layer of snow. The snow gradually compacts under its own weight, making a layer of opaque proto-ice. In summer, the top part of the winter snowfall partially melts and refreezes lower down, making a transparent top layer on top.
The real problem is any battery life measurement depends very much on how strong a signal you are getting from the basestation. If you're a long way from the nearest basestation and have a mountain or two in between, you won't get much signal, which makes the phone use up the battery much more quickly during calls and really eats into your available talk time.
Cellphones with better battery life than Motorola's existed even four years ago. For instance, the Sony Ericsson T65i was the market leader in 2002 having a standby time of 300 hours and a talk time of 11 hours.
In practice, I found that phone never lasted more than 200 hours standby and 6.5 hours talk time even with a brand new battery in an area with good reception close to a basestation. In areas with poor signal strength, standby was ~80 hours and talk time was ~3 hours. I expect Motorola's battery life figures fall off similarly quickly with signal strength.
In its never-ending drive for improved "efficiency", the BBC Television weather service has just drastically cut the quality of presentation by deciding to drop the standard weather symbols they have used for ages.
Now instead of that they are using cheap-looking fly-over views of Britain generated from a weirdly chosen vantage point somewhere over North Africa(!) which has the effect of making Scotland look tiny in the view compared to the south of England.
Even worse, they now use animated rain drops which look like they are falling from a height of about 50-100kilometres above Earth, i.e. rain from space!
The new look also makes it hard to tell where the rain is going to fall because the animated rain drops fall down the screen starting quite some distance outside the area on the map that is actually going to get hit by rain.
Even more daftly, the rain drops appear to fall vertically down the screen. If you absolutely insist on using silly 3d perspective views for all of this, which you really shouldn't do, then at least make the rain drops fall in true 3d perspective.
Lastly, they have also decided not to give any air pressure maps, which stops anyone even vaguely familiar with weather forecasting from working out for themselves the short-term trends beyond the end date of that weather forecast.
Type B(eta) Slashdot effect: Any article related to radioactivity causes certain sheeple to rush to make selective citations in support of pre-fabricated ideas that radiation health-effects are always exaggerated.
While tritium itself is generally less harmful than other well-known radiochemicals, don't get the idea that tritium is always relatively harmless -- in the right circumstances there can be a severe hazard to human health, and that's why it is included in many countries' radiation safety regulations. Learn what the risks are and if you know you are near tritium sources, take reasonable steps to avoid the risks.
The beta particles emitted by tritium are electrons with energies from 6keV to 18.6keV. These electroncs are not energetic enough to be able to penetrate the surface-layer of dead human skin "epidermis", so the living cells underneath are protected. It's obvious that is not the way tritium can be a serious hazard.
The health risk is from internal absorption of
chemical compounds of tritium such as tritiated water (HTO), (tritium reacts just like hydrogen does to form water).
Your body will initially absorb 100% of inhaled tritiated water vapour (HTO). Of the total amount absorbed, 3% goes into body tissues with longer-term storage with a 40-day biological half-time (BHT), while 97% goes into shorter-term storage with a 10-day BHT. All the while the absorbed HTO is inside your body it is used to form proteins, neurotransmitters, RNA, DNA and other components of living cells. All of these materials are known to be easily damaged by ionizing radiation which is what the beta particles emitted by the tritium are. Even though the beta particles from tritium are of relatively low energy, they are able to ionize and damage the body's cells due to the atomic-scale proximity of the tritium to the molecules inside cells (there is no protective barrier of dead skin inside a cell).
The Relative Biological Effectiveness of tritium beta irradiation is generally greater than that of gamma irradiation and similar to or greater than that of X-irradiation. Although the observed effects of tritium are very largely attributable to ionization damage, the transmutation of tritium to helium also has the potential to cause damage to DNA (26,68). Rapid dissolution
of carbon-helium bonds will leave reactive carbon ions that can damage DNA by causing single-strand breaks and interstrand cross-links(75,76).
I've known shitty USB modems to throw a wobbler and reset these values to 0 0 before (on a windoze box) which is *possably* what your problem is.
Yes, I wondered whether the USB modem might have developed a fault, so I bought a new USB modem and tested it on the same phoneline with the same driver. Unfortunately, the ADSL hanging and errors continued to occur with the same frequency as with the original USB modem. I also tested both modems on somebody else's ADSL phoneline, where they worked perfectly, so I think these USB modems are actually ok and the problem is due to something else, e.g. the ADSL linecard at the local telephone exchange. It seems like a very unlikely coincidence that the ADSL service should fall over on Wednesday 9th March 2005, after having worked perfectly for 7 months, on the very same day that BT replaced the ADSL linecard.
Yeah, thanks, my VPI/VCI are already correctly set -- like I said, the ADSL worked perfectly for 7 months and then suddenly developed a serious problem on the same day that BT said they replaced the line card at the telephone exchange. I get lots of variations of that error message:
May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(0)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4095)/VCI(65535) (OAM?) PTI=0x07 May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03 May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04 May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(0)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4095)/VCI(65535) (OAM?) PTI=0x07 May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03 May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04 May 10 11:47:37 host last message repeated 3 times May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03 May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04 May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4091)/VCI(61648) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(128)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:49:31 host last message repeated 13 times May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03 May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04 May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4091)/VCI(61648) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(128)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: CRC error in an AAL5 frame May 10 11:53:35 host last message repeated 2 times May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03 May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04 May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4091)/VCI(61648) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(128)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 May 10 11:54:40 host last message repeated 20 times May 10 11:56:04 host last message repeated 133 times May 10 11:57:07 host pppoa2[15084]: CRC error in an AAL5 frame
I have noticed a very surprising new problem with BT broadband.
I have 512/256kbps broadband (it's from a downstream supplier of BT broadband wholesale). The ADSL connection worked perfectly for 7 months using a Thomson Speedtouch 330 ADSL USB modem and the pppoa3 driver giving nearly the maximum download bandwidth of 490-500kbps. I had no complaints about the quality of the service.
Then, suddenly on Wednesday 9th March 2005, my phoneline went totally dead (both for voice and ADSL). BT Fault Repairs phoned to say they had had to replace the line card in the exchange. At exactly the same time and from that date onwards, the ADSL download speed was suddenly greatly reduced to only 120-130kbps and the pppoa3 driver keeps crashing and giving millions of errors like:
pppoa3[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(0)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00 pppoa3[15084]: CRC error in an AAL5 frame(repeated hundreds of times)
Every few minutes, after hundreds of these errors, the driver seems to hang; no packets flow and according to strace it seems that pppd is stuck waiting in read(). This is very frustrating because the connection has to be re-started and it takes about 15 seconds to be re-established.
Even more strangely, on 1st May 2005 the download speed suddenly increased to 300-320kbps but the pppoa3 errors and hanging are continuing.
I've tried running the driver in threaded and non-threaded modes, with sync or async options, as well as trying the pppoa2 driver instead but the errors and hanging problems remain. I emailed the pppoa3 driver authors Benoit Papillault, Francois Rogler and Edouard Gomez to ask if they knew of such a problem but they never replied.
Both BT and the ADSL supplier say that all of their tests show both the phoneline and the ADSL service should be working normally. The ADSL supplier denies there is any problem.
Has anyone else had a similar problem which started very suddenly?
Many of the claims do imply, albeit only under certain interpretations, the meaning of "message" is limited to a communication that is based on physical processes, but several of the claims are sufficiently general as not to imply any such limitation and each such abstract claim can hold independently of the other non-abstract claims. In particular, see abstract claims 1, 3, 8 in USPTO 4,405,829.
Since a "message" in that description is necessarily represented as a number, and the process in that description does not necessarily imply communication based on any physical quantities, in what way is the process not pure mathematics?
Few top-quality journals reject as much as 90% of all submissions unreviewed according to the journal-editor I know; your journal seems to be an unusual case.
Really?
Yes, really.
Perhaps we're in different fields. Again, we're talking top quality journals. Lower quality journals are usually more accepting.
Whatever the percentage of "rejected unreviewed" may be for different top journals in different fields, it doesn't significantly alter the feasibility in my opinion of scientists and their institutions organising their own peer-reviewed open-access journals and applying whatever quality thresholds they deem appropriate.
Perhaps my figure was an exageration, but yours is also. Are you really willing to reject someone's hard-earned results with less than a minute of scrutiny?
No, you're over-generalising what I said. I said most scientists can quickly identify most junk submissions as junk, but I did not say or imply that it is possible to identify good submissions equally quickly. My estimate of less than one minute only applies to identifying the worst of the junk but it is by no means an exaggeration in such cases. The authors of junk almost always demonstrate - usually sooner rather than later - such serious misunderstandings of fundamental concepts and elementary logic that one quickly sees their papers are not worth reading in detail and should be rapidly discarded. This is essential because, especially for a top journal or conference, you want to focus your limited reviewing time on the large number of high-quality submissions. Fortunately, a busy scientist can judge very quickly what the quality of a paper is from reading things like:
"[X implies Y] and [Y,not X], hence [X implies Y] is false" (invalid deduction)
"these [experimental results] prove our theory of [X] is correct" (logical impossibility),
"Our conclusion is that [X] always causes [Y]." (wrong due to earlier invalid assumptions)
"In Figure 1, the design of the [perpetual motion machine]..."
(physical impossibility),
"Because theory of [X] says [Y - whereas it actually says Z], our results imply... Therefore, our conclusion is... " (conceptual misunderstanding),
all the way down the scale to howlers like:
"To gives our paper new multi-clas solushen for [X] witout any clas. Sistem is shown for case of numberical non-number such nobody choose." (incoherent junk even after ignoring the mis-spellings and bad grammar)
"We compare the leading television actors of the 1960s with their modern counterparts in the following ways..." (wonderful but utterly irrelevant to a scientific journal)
You said,
Most scientists (and most editors) start with the attitude that they want to accept the paper, then look for reasons not to.
I think reviewers should judge each paper exclusively on its merit without holding any particular initial attitude about the paper's acceptability.
You assume that proof-reading and copy-editing are things which journal editors usually do and which need to be done
We have a staff of full-time copyeditors (I'm not one, obviously). Again, we're talking about higher end, higher quality journals. If you're willing to do away with such things, that's certainly your perogative
I'd say the apparently extensive proof-reading and copy-editing you deploy in your journal are quite exceptional for top journals in any field and that goes some way toward explaining your high cost base.
in my field (biology), in the age of genomics, the nomenclature has become something of a nightmare, so a careful edi
"Of course, good journals reject a lot of papers, but the journal editors themselves do not review any of them"
Sorry, you're wrong. I'm an editor with a scientific journal. I read (or one of my co-editors reads) every single paper that comes across our doorstep. We have to make a decision on every single submission--does it go out to reviewers, or is it rejected unreviewed.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you said that what I said about journal editors not reviewing papers is wrong and then you said that papers which don't go out to reviewers are "rejected unreviewed" [my emphasis].
As I asked before, if a journal is rejecting 90% of submissions unreviewed (which is a solid number for a decent journal), that means if you eliminate the editors, your workload just went up 10X per journal you review for. Do you have that kind of spare time?
Your assumptions are questionable:
(1) Few top-quality journals reject as much as 90% of all submissions unreviewed according to the journal-editor I know; your journal seems to be an unusual case.
(2) Your claim that scientists' workload for handling journal submissions would increase 10-fold depends on your assumption that it takes an editor and a scientist equal amounts of time to identify a junk submission. It generally doesn't. Most scientists can identify most junk submissions as junk more quickly than an intelligent lay-person such as an editor, typically in less than a minute of skimming through the content.
(3) You assume that the work done by one journal editor would be replaced by work done by one scientist, whereas in fact the reviewing and admin work would be spread across each community of tens, hundreds or even thousands of scientists, their research students/assistants, and their institutions' secretaries. The net increase in workload for an individual scientist would generally be very small, of the order of minutes per day.
Overall, I don't see any insurmountable problems for the scientists.
What about the time you'll be spending finding reviewers for papers, or chasing down late reviews? Now how about the time refereeing between authors and reviewers as to what changes are reasonable to request? Don't forget all the time you'll be spending proofreading and copyediting (nomenclature alone is gonna take you a while).
Your assumptions are questionable:
(1) You assume things would be done in the same way you do them now; this ignores the possibility of using technology in various ways to assist in the process of obtaining timely reviews.
(2) You assume that a change from submitting to editors to submitting directly to scientists wouldn't change the quantity or quality of the submissions. In my and my colleagues' experiences with reviewing raw unfiltered submissions for journals and conferences, having authors send their work directly to scientists seems to encourage higher quality and lower quantity.
(3) You assume that proof-reading and copy-editing are things which journal editors usually do and which need to be done. However, in my experience and also that of the journal editor I know, most leading journal papers neither receive nor ever required any proof-reading and copy-editing by journal editors, and in cases where editors do undertake such activities they not infrequently introduce errors of their own, viz. your previous post:-).
1) I think we're more likely to see a compromise, something in between like what's happening now where journals make papers free to access after 6 months. You can't replace a successful system until you have something else that will work as well. So far, open access does not work as well.
I think different communities of scientists may adopt different solu
Circular reasoning: see Reasoning, circular. Let me know when you're done looking up the definition (and finding those peer reviewers).
Looks like you need to go back and finish logic 101. I said, "X could be done by Y" where it was implicit that X is not equal to Y. Let me make it clearer:
X = Process of finding a subset A of scientists who can be independent peer-reviewers for a paper P co-authored by a subset B of scientists such that A has null intersection with B and the members of A are considered to be independent of the members of B.
Y = Process of using a subset C of scientists, where C has null intersection with B, to reach a consensus decision about the members of A.
N.B. without a premise and a semantically equivalent conclusion, there is and was no circular reasoning.
Note that the editors are not supposed to have particularly notable skills in the subject the journal covers. Criticizing editors for not being biologists is idiotic.
Sorry to break it to you but I didn't make such a criticism.
They do, however, have skills in editing and publishing -- which, oddly enough, most academics lack.
The moot claim that all editors have skills in editing and publishing will not change the facts that most journal papers are published with absolutely no copy-editing by the journal editors, and it is only the publishers and editors who are complaining about academics' proposals to send their papers to open-access journals instead of to closed-access journals.
Almost everyone is a specialist. Only the supremely arrogant assume their particular speciality is the only one that makes the world go 'round and everyone else is just a disposable, replaceable peasant.
Nobody except you is mentioning or even implying such labels. If you choose to go around with a huge chip on your shoulder, that's your problem.
Of course, good journals reject a lot of papers, but the journal editors themselves do not review any of them - the reviewing is done by the scientists who understand the subject matter. I am a research scientist and I know what the workload of reviewing papers is like; most of my colleagues spend on average at most a few hours per week on reviewing activities.
I expect all scientific publishers will eventually be forced to adapt to the inevitable change to various forms of open-access publishing, whether they like it or not, because it is being demanded by the end users (the researchers) who, afterall, provide the publishers with free raw materials and free reviewing labour. This is increasingly being seen as a likely outcome even by the large publishers according to the one journal editor I know. It may come as a shock to some publishers, but that will not change the outcome or the reviewing workload one iota.
The problem is that there is not enough perceived value to the real end-users (the researchers) in the editors' work of editing and proofreading to stop those end-users demanding to cut out the middlemen (the editors and publishers) and publish their papers themselves online at places like PubMed.
there is still very important jobs that you need good top-level editors for:
- Throwing out the complete garbage, crackpottery, etc: seeing if the author exists, is at a real institution, etc.
These are all things which could be checked very quickly without any editor by peer reviewers.
- Finding people to peer-review the article. This is not easy; it's often difficult to find 3 or 4 good people in the right sub-field who don't actually have a connection to the work. This means the editor has to understand the article to begin with.
The process of finding independent peer-reviewers could itself be well handled by peer review.
- Dealing with fraud, plagurism, etc. Not easy.
Dealing with fraud, plagiarism is the easy part -- identifying it when it occurs is the hard part and editors are usually not the ones who identify fraud and plagiarism - it's peers who spot almost all such problems.
Whether the IEEE's membership level goes up or down after any decision to make IEEE publications free to access online, will depend on what other services they offer as part of an IEEE membership and the price of that membership. The IEEE, as a scientific society whose stated mission is to "promote the engineering process of creating,... and applying knowledge... for the benefit of humanity and the profession", has for too long taken the traditional publishers' approach of revenue maximisation from its online publications based on providing expensive and highly restrictive copyright licences to its end users (the IEEE's online copyright licence is even more restrictive than its copyright licence for printed materials in several respects including re-distribution). At the moment, if the IEEE were to start free access without offering any additional member services, I think the membership fee would need to be cut very substantially to avoid a large drop in membership.
The future is almost certainly going to see the authors, their institutions and their grant-awarding bodies fund a greater share of the costs of publishing papers in the IEEE publications and elsewhere. I don't know how well the IEEE will handle this inevitable transition in its sources of income but, overall, a move to free access would be a very good thing for the mission of the IEEE.
"[We, the Science Musuem of Minnesota,] are frustrated by a lack of consolidated resources and discussion about open-source, scientific visualization development tools"
Counter-examples:
OpenDX - powerful data visualisation software
Open source but downloading requires you to register and to acknowledge their patents. This software became open-source in 1999
as first discussed here on Slashdot(why does Slashdot still use the same old Slashcode which even after 7 years of development still destroys the nesting of all its archived articles after 2 weeks???)
"relies upon the assumption that oil exists only down to a certain depth"
In what way does the theory of peak oil rely on this assumption?
"the theory that oil is a finite, depletable resource was formed in the mid-1700's and hasn't really changed since."
Please give bibliographic details for published peer-reviewed journal papers that support the interesting hypothesis that oil is currently being renewed faster than it is being consumed.
"Lot's of information [link to 7thfirewbsite] to discredit Hubbert out there."
I wouldn't trust a website like that one which is filled with unpleasant racist claims (links on right-hand side). Secondly, giving quotations from people and links to other like-minded websites is ok for just a webpage but it is not scientifically peer-validated evidence to support their hypothesis. If it was a serious article, there would be citations including full bibliographic data to peer-reviewed journal papers. The Economist, the New York Times, the New Scientist, fromthewildness.com may be great news sources but they are not peer-reviewed journals.
Re:Another example of good documentation is R
on
Hibernate in Action
·
· Score: 1
Thanks. That's a very handy quick reference card for R. Isn't R excellent software! By the way, does your version of LaTeX actually process files that end in.ltx? Mine only works if the suffix is.tex
Re:Another project with a lot of Documentation
on
Hibernate in Action
·
· Score: 1
Yes, that's even more than Hibernate's documentation. If you like R, try Albert Gräf's Q, a powerful functional/equational programming language which now has a set of Q multimedia examples including audio and MIDI based on a KDE interface.
Slashdot Mirror
What I would like is for nVidia (and ATI) to start making lower power consumption a big goal for their new products. Can't we leave the era of 100-110Watts being the norm for new graphics card such as the GeForce 7800 GTX?
The parent post is badly misinformed. Please get your facts correct. The ice on Greenland did not thaw around the year 1000. The ice has been there for over 400000 years . Drill an ice core and, like tree rings, you can count the annual "rings" in the core, giving the age of the ice at the base of the core as 100k-400k years depending on the location. The rings are alternating transparent and translucent layers of ice. Every winter heavy snowfall creates a thick new layer of snow. The snow gradually compacts under its own weight, making a layer of opaque proto-ice. In summer, the top part of the winter snowfall partially melts and refreezes lower down, making a transparent top layer on top.
Cellphones with better battery life than Motorola's existed even four years ago. For instance, the Sony Ericsson T65i was the market leader in 2002 having a standby time of 300 hours and a talk time of 11 hours. In practice, I found that phone never lasted more than 200 hours standby and 6.5 hours talk time even with a brand new battery in an area with good reception close to a basestation. In areas with poor signal strength, standby was ~80 hours and talk time was ~3 hours. I expect Motorola's battery life figures fall off similarly quickly with signal strength.
I wonder if there is somebody somewhere working on a peer-to-peer variant for distributing Wikipedia content and cutting some of the bandwidth costs.
It does not compile under KDE 3.4.0 with all the required and recommended devel packages installed: /bin/sh ../../../../../libtool --silent --mode=link --tag=CXX g++ -Wnon-virtual-dtor -Wno-long-long -Wundef -ansi -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=500 -D_BSD_SOURCE -Wcast-align -Wconversion -Wchar-subscripts -Wall -W -Wpointer-arith -Wno-non-virtual-dtor -O2 -Wformat-security -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new -fno-common -DQT_CLEAN_NAMESPACE -DQT_NO_ASCII_CAST -DQT_NO_STL -DQT_NO_COMPAT -DQT_NO_TRANSLATION -o libamarokarts.la -rpath /opt/kde/lib -L/opt/kde/lib -L/usr/lib/qt/lib -L/usr/X11R6/lib -avoid-version -no-undefined -Wl,--no-undefined -Wl,--allow-shlib-undefined amarokarts.lo synth_stereo_xfade_impl.lo rawscope_impl.lo -lkmedia2_idl -lsoundserver_idl -lartsflow .libs/amarokarts.o(.gnu.linkonce.d._ZTCN6Amarok23S ynth_STEREO_XFADE_stubE48_N4Arts16SynthModule_stub E+0xa8): undefined reference to `virtual thunk to Arts::SynthModule_stub::autoSuspend()' .libs/amarokarts.o(.gnu.linkonce.d._ZTCN6Amarok23S ynth_STEREO_XFADE_stubE48_N4Arts16SynthModule_stub E+0xac): undefined reference to `virtual thunk to Arts::SynthModule_stub::start()' .libs/amarokarts.o(.gnu.linkonce.d._ZTCN6Amarok23S ynth_STEREO_XFADE_stubE48_N4Arts16SynthModule_stub E+0xb0): undefined reference to `virtual thunk to Arts::SynthModule_stub::stop()' .libs/amarokarts.o(.gnu.linkonce.d._ZTCN6Amarok23S ynth_STEREO_XFADE_stubE48_N4Arts16SynthModule_stub E+0xb4): undefined reference to `virtual thunk to Arts::SynthModule_stub::streamInit()' .libs/amarokarts.o(.gnu.linkonce.d._ZTCN6Amarok23S ynth_STEREO_XFADE_stubE48_N4Arts16SynthModule_stub E+0xb8): undefined reference to `virtual thunk to Arts::SynthModule_stub::streamStart()' .libs/amarokarts.o(.gnu.linkonce.d._ZTCN6Amarok23S ynth_STEREO_XFADE_stubE48_N4Arts16SynthModule_stub E+0xbc): undefined reference to `virtual thunk to Arts::SynthModule_stub::streamEnd()'
Now instead of that they are using cheap-looking fly-over views of Britain generated from a weirdly chosen vantage point somewhere over North Africa(!) which has the effect of making Scotland look tiny in the view compared to the south of England.
Even worse, they now use animated rain drops which look like they are falling from a height of about 50-100kilometres above Earth, i.e. rain from space!
The new look also makes it hard to tell where the rain is going to fall because the animated rain drops fall down the screen starting quite some distance outside the area on the map that is actually going to get hit by rain.
Even more daftly, the rain drops appear to fall vertically down the screen. If you absolutely insist on using silly 3d perspective views for all of this, which you really shouldn't do, then at least make the rain drops fall in true 3d perspective.
Lastly, they have also decided not to give any air pressure maps, which stops anyone even vaguely familiar with weather forecasting from working out for themselves the short-term trends beyond the end date of that weather forecast.
While tritium itself is generally less harmful than other well-known radiochemicals, don't get the idea that tritium is always relatively harmless -- in the right circumstances there can be a severe hazard to human health, and that's why it is included in many countries' radiation safety regulations. Learn what the risks are and if you know you are near tritium sources, take reasonable steps to avoid the risks.
The beta particles emitted by tritium are electrons with energies from 6keV to 18.6keV. These electroncs are not energetic enough to be able to penetrate the surface-layer of dead human skin "epidermis", so the living cells underneath are protected. It's obvious that is not the way tritium can be a serious hazard. The health risk is from internal absorption of chemical compounds of tritium such as tritiated water (HTO), (tritium reacts just like hydrogen does to form water).
Your body will initially absorb 100% of inhaled tritiated water vapour (HTO). Of the total amount absorbed, 3% goes into body tissues with longer-term storage with a 40-day biological half-time (BHT), while 97% goes into shorter-term storage with a 10-day BHT. All the while the absorbed HTO is inside your body it is used to form proteins, neurotransmitters, RNA, DNA and other components of living cells. All of these materials are known to be easily damaged by ionizing radiation which is what the beta particles emitted by the tritium are. Even though the beta particles from tritium are of relatively low energy, they are able to ionize and damage the body's cells due to the atomic-scale proximity of the tritium to the molecules inside cells (there is no protective barrier of dead skin inside a cell).
The Relative Biological Effectiveness of tritium beta irradiation is generally greater than that of gamma irradiation and similar to or greater than that of X-irradiation. Although the observed effects of tritium are very largely attributable to ionization damage, the transmutation of tritium to helium also has the potential to cause damage to DNA (26,68). Rapid dissolution of carbon-helium bonds will leave reactive carbon ions that can damage DNA by causing single-strand breaks and interstrand cross-links(75,76).
Quoted from a report of the UK Working Group of the Consultative Exercise on Radiation Risks of Internal Emitters (CERRIE)
Yes, I wondered whether the USB modem might have developed a fault, so I bought a new USB modem and tested it on the same phoneline with the same driver. Unfortunately, the ADSL hanging and errors continued to occur with the same frequency as with the original USB modem. I also tested both modems on somebody else's ADSL phoneline, where they worked perfectly, so I think these USB modems are actually ok and the problem is due to something else, e.g. the ADSL linecard at the local telephone exchange. It seems like a very unlikely coincidence that the ADSL service should fall over on Wednesday 9th March 2005, after having worked perfectly for 7 months, on the very same day that BT replaced the ADSL linecard.
May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(0)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4095)/VCI(65535) (OAM?) PTI=0x07
May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03
May 10 11:46:20 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04
May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(0)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4095)/VCI(65535) (OAM?) PTI=0x07
May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03
May 10 11:47:37 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04
May 10 11:47:37 host last message repeated 3 times
May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03
May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04
May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4091)/VCI(61648) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:49:31 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(128)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:49:31 host last message repeated 13 times
May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03
May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04
May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4091)/VCI(61648) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(128)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:51:56 host pppoa2[15084]: CRC error in an AAL5 frame
May 10 11:53:35 host last message repeated 2 times
May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(3087)/VCI(40907) (OAM?) PTI=0x03
May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(288)/VCI(20612) (OAM?) PTI=0x04
May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(4091)/VCI(61648) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:54:40 host pppoa2[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(128)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
May 10 11:54:40 host last message repeated 20 times
May 10 11:56:04 host last message repeated 133 times
May 10 11:57:07 host pppoa2[15084]: CRC error in an AAL5 frame
I have 512/256kbps broadband (it's from a downstream supplier of BT broadband wholesale). The ADSL connection worked perfectly for 7 months using a Thomson Speedtouch 330 ADSL USB modem and the pppoa3 driver giving nearly the maximum download bandwidth of 490-500kbps. I had no complaints about the quality of the service.
Then, suddenly on Wednesday 9th March 2005, my phoneline went totally dead (both for voice and ADSL). BT Fault Repairs phoned to say they had had to replace the line card in the exchange. At exactly the same time and from that date onwards, the ADSL download speed was suddenly greatly reduced to only 120-130kbps and the pppoa3 driver keeps crashing and giving millions of errors like:
pppoa3[15084]: Cell had wrong VPI(0)/VCI(0) (OAM?) PTI=0x00
pppoa3[15084]: CRC error in an AAL5 frame(repeated hundreds of times)
Every few minutes, after hundreds of these errors, the driver seems to hang; no packets flow and according to strace it seems that pppd is stuck waiting in read(). This is very frustrating because the connection has to be re-started and it takes about 15 seconds to be re-established.
Even more strangely, on 1st May 2005 the download speed suddenly increased to 300-320kbps but the pppoa3 errors and hanging are continuing.
I've tried running the driver in threaded and non-threaded modes, with sync or async options, as well as trying the pppoa2 driver instead but the errors and hanging problems remain. I emailed the pppoa3 driver authors Benoit Papillault, Francois Rogler and Edouard Gomez to ask if they knew of such a problem but they never replied.
Both BT and the ADSL supplier say that all of their tests show both the phoneline and the ADSL service should be working normally. The ADSL supplier denies there is any problem.
Has anyone else had a similar problem which started very suddenly?
- 'message' means a real-world communication, not an arbitrary number.
Any message which has a physical embodiment in a real-world communication is necessarily representable in some abstract encoding as a number.Many of the claims do imply, albeit only under certain interpretations, the meaning of "message" is limited to a communication that is based on physical processes, but several of the claims are sufficiently general as not to imply any such limitation and each such abstract claim can hold independently of the other non-abstract claims. In particular, see abstract claims 1, 3, 8 in USPTO 4,405,829.
Since a "message" in that description is necessarily represented as a number, and the process in that description does not necessarily imply communication based on any physical quantities, in what way is the process not pure mathematics?
Really?
Yes, really.
Whatever the percentage of "rejected unreviewed" may be for different top journals in different fields, it doesn't significantly alter the feasibility in my opinion of scientists and their institutions organising their own peer-reviewed open-access journals and applying whatever quality thresholds they deem appropriate.
No, you're over-generalising what I said. I said most scientists can quickly identify most junk submissions as junk, but I did not say or imply that it is possible to identify good submissions equally quickly. My estimate of less than one minute only applies to identifying the worst of the junk but it is by no means an exaggeration in such cases. The authors of junk almost always demonstrate - usually sooner rather than later - such serious misunderstandings of fundamental concepts and elementary logic that one quickly sees their papers are not worth reading in detail and should be rapidly discarded. This is essential because, especially for a top journal or conference, you want to focus your limited reviewing time on the large number of high-quality submissions. Fortunately, a busy scientist can judge very quickly what the quality of a paper is from reading things like:
all the way down the scale to howlers like:
You said,
I think reviewers should judge each paper exclusively on its merit without holding any particular initial attitude about the paper's acceptability.
We have a staff of full-time copyeditors (I'm not one, obviously). Again, we're talking about higher end, higher quality journals. If you're willing to do away with such things, that's certainly your perogative
I'd say the apparently extensive proof-reading and copy-editing you deploy in your journal are quite exceptional for top journals in any field and that goes some way toward explaining your high cost base.
Which top journal did you say you work for? :-)
Sorry, you're wrong. I'm an editor with a scientific journal. I read (or one of my co-editors reads) every single paper that comes across our doorstep. We have to make a decision on every single submission--does it go out to reviewers, or is it rejected unreviewed.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. First you said that what I said about journal editors not reviewing papers is wrong and then you said that papers which don't go out to reviewers are "rejected unreviewed" [my emphasis].
Your assumptions are questionable:
(1) Few top-quality journals reject as much as 90% of all submissions unreviewed according to the journal-editor I know; your journal seems to be an unusual case.
(2) Your claim that scientists' workload for handling journal submissions would increase 10-fold depends on your assumption that it takes an editor and a scientist equal amounts of time to identify a junk submission. It generally doesn't. Most scientists can identify most junk submissions as junk more quickly than an intelligent lay-person such as an editor, typically in less than a minute of skimming through the content.
(3) You assume that the work done by one journal editor would be replaced by work done by one scientist, whereas in fact the reviewing and admin work would be spread across each community of tens, hundreds or even thousands of scientists, their research students/assistants, and their institutions' secretaries. The net increase in workload for an individual scientist would generally be very small, of the order of minutes per day.
Overall, I don't see any insurmountable problems for the scientists.
Your assumptions are questionable:
:-).
(1) You assume things would be done in the same way you do them now; this ignores the possibility of using technology in various ways to assist in the process of obtaining timely reviews.
(2) You assume that a change from submitting to editors to submitting directly to scientists wouldn't change the quantity or quality of the submissions. In my and my colleagues' experiences with reviewing raw unfiltered submissions for journals and conferences, having authors send their work directly to scientists seems to encourage higher quality and lower quantity.
(3) You assume that proof-reading and copy-editing are things which journal editors usually do and which need to be done. However, in my experience and also that of the journal editor I know, most leading journal papers neither receive nor ever required any proof-reading and copy-editing by journal editors, and in cases where editors do undertake such activities they not infrequently introduce errors of their own, viz. your previous post
I think different communities of scientists may adopt different solu
- Circular reasoning: see Reasoning, circular. Let me know when you're done looking up the definition (and finding those peer reviewers).
Looks like you need to go back and finish logic 101. I said, "X could be done by Y" where it was implicit that X is not equal to Y.Let me make it clearer:
A has null intersection with B and the members of A are considered to be independent of the members of B.
- Y = Process of using a subset C of scientists, where C has null intersection with B, to reach a consensus decision about the members of A.
N.B. without a premise and a semantically equivalent conclusion, there is and was no circular reasoning.- Note that the editors are not supposed to have particularly notable skills in the subject the journal covers. Criticizing editors for not being biologists is idiotic.
Sorry to break it to you but I didn't make such a criticism.- They do, however, have skills in editing and publishing -- which, oddly enough, most academics lack.
The moot claim that all editors have skills in editing and publishing will not change the facts that most journal papers are published with absolutely no copy-editing by the journal editors, and it is only the publishers and editors who are complaining about academics' proposals to send their papers to open-access journals instead of to closed-access journals.- Almost everyone is a specialist. Only the supremely arrogant assume their particular speciality is the only one that makes the world go 'round and everyone else is just a disposable, replaceable peasant.
Nobody except you is mentioning or even implying such labels. If you choose to go around with a huge chip on your shoulder, that's your problem.I expect all scientific publishers will eventually be forced to adapt to the inevitable change to various forms of open-access publishing, whether they like it or not, because it is being demanded by the end users (the researchers) who, afterall, provide the publishers with free raw materials and free reviewing labour. This is increasingly being seen as a likely outcome even by the large publishers according to the one journal editor I know. It may come as a shock to some publishers, but that will not change the outcome or the reviewing workload one iota.
The problem is that there is not enough perceived value to the real end-users (the researchers) in the editors' work of editing and proofreading to stop those end-users demanding to cut out the middlemen (the editors and publishers) and publish their papers themselves online at places like PubMed.
- there is still very important jobs that you need good top-level editors for:
These are all things which could be checked very quickly without any editor by peer reviewers.- Throwing out the complete garbage, crackpottery, etc: seeing if the author exists, is at a real institution, etc.
- - Finding people to peer-review the article. This is not easy; it's often difficult to find 3 or 4 good people in the right sub-field who don't actually have a connection to the work. This means the editor has to understand the article to begin with.
The process of finding independent peer-reviewers could itself be well handled by peer review.- - Dealing with fraud, plagurism, etc. Not easy.
Dealing with fraud, plagiarism is the easy part -- identifying it when it occurs is the hard part and editors are usually not the ones who identify fraud and plagiarism - it's peers who spot almost all such problems.The future is almost certainly going to see the authors, their institutions and their grant-awarding bodies fund a greater share of the costs of publishing papers in the IEEE publications and elsewhere. I don't know how well the IEEE will handle this inevitable transition in its sources of income but, overall, a move to free access would be a very good thing for the mission of the IEEE.
Open-source Visualisation software:
Counter-examples:
- "relies upon the assumption that oil exists only down to a certain depth"
In what way does the theory of peak oil rely on this assumption?- "the theory that oil is a finite, depletable resource was formed in the mid-1700's and hasn't really changed since."
Please give bibliographic details for published peer-reviewed journal papers that support the interesting hypothesis that oil is currently being renewed faster than it is being consumed.- "Lot's of information [link to 7thfirewbsite] to discredit Hubbert out there."
I wouldn't trust a website like that one which is filled with unpleasant racist claims (links on right-hand side). Secondly, giving quotations from people and links to other like-minded websites is ok for just a webpage but it is not scientifically peer-validated evidence to support their hypothesis. If it was a serious article, there would be citations including full bibliographic data to peer-reviewed journal papers. The Economist, the New York Times, the New Scientist, fromthewildness.com may be great news sources but they are not peer-reviewed journals.Thanks. That's a very handy quick reference card for R. Isn't R excellent software! By the way, does your version of LaTeX actually process files that end in .ltx? Mine only works if the suffix is .tex
Yes, that's even more than Hibernate's documentation. If you like R, try Albert Gräf's Q, a powerful functional/equational programming language which now has a set of Q multimedia examples including audio and MIDI based on a KDE interface.
- "in 1978 we were told that we had less than 10 years worth of oil still in the ground? Since then we have learned quite the opposite."
I guess this is the opposite