I began my course in genetics with essentially this programming goal in mind (making bad biological software better). Now I've got enough genetic theory under my belt to have a crack at something like this (although my practice is mostly low-level clinical biochemistry). Just a few more months...
Just watch out for the toner issues if you're a penny pincher. I've seen a Brother printer that mentioned being out of toner before the pages started looking bad, something to do with a page counter that stopped any use beyond a certain limit. The cartridge got topped up at a second-hand place (who probably didn't know about this issue), and still complained about being empty when it was full.
Right, got it. You teach people who are interested in engineering a new combined car/boat/plane that's big enough to have a little farm inside, with harpoons and guns on the outside for shooting fish that are in aquariums in banks (targetting controlled by computer, of course).
Sorry, I'm not quite up to scratch with those new-fangled DVDs-per-second-7000kilometers. How many library of congresses per leap-year.light-year is that?
From my brief read, this looks like it's a dilatant sealed inside a foam/gas matrix. The patent refers to Dow Corning catalogue number 3179. The datasheet for that suggests it's a pink compound, not orange:
There is just no way to improve this until you fit your shock absorber with little rockets and sensors to determine when it's about to impact the ground.
They didn't address what happens if you constantly send the same unit back in time from multiple points in your stream to generate an army at one point. I guess the 'update waves' are a function to control that.
Er, yes they did. Gameplay overview video, about 2:28, 2:45 and 3:20.
In an attempt to summarise, this is a valid tactic, but sending units back in time consumes chronoenergy (more consumed the further back they are sent), so there's an energy limit to the size of your army.
You keep calling me kid even tough you don't know my age. Stop being condescending. I am not a kid, and you are being rude.
Well, since you asked so kindly, the Google suggests that you'll turn 32 near the end of November this year. I'm assuming that's you, because that user (same ID) mentioned a home location in Portugal, and you have mentioned in previous/. posts that you live in Portugal.
Your confrontational behaviour is child-like, even if your age suggests otherwise. Oh, and mind the trolls on slashdot. They're all over the place....
You can always expect problems when you're transporting large things along a windy road. I'm sure the initial issues will blow over, and they'll tackle the remainder with much gusto.
Visits to non-banned sites on the same servers as banned sites will have to go through the DIA's filter server and will then be forwarded out to the real server through the DIA's internet connection. This will have some impact on performance, although the extent will largely depend on how good the performance of the DIA's filter is, and whether they have enough internet bandwidth to be able to service the requests they pass through.
So, to slow down the filter, I need to find a non-banned site on the same server as a banned site, then access a large file. According to the technical FAQ, the address of the requesting computer won't get logged. A working DOS would need bandwidth greater than that of the DIA, which is likely to be rather difficult.
When a user requests a web page there are three possible outcomes:
...
The requested website is banned and is therefore on one of the filtered internet addresses. The request is diverted to the filter server which sees that the URL is banned and an âoeAccess is refusedâ page is returned. The internet address of the requesting computer is logged.
...
So, if I want to put a black mark on someone, I look at the list of banned URLs, and put a hyperlink somewhere so that that person will click through to a banned URL. I could also put a message on the original page saying something like, "if you get an 'access is refused'" message, go back and click on the link again. It's worth it!"
Lemmings was a game that occasionally invoked a few gulps from me. It was hardly realistic graphics -- this was a game built on the idea of making creature graphics as small (pixel-wise) as possible yet still produce a recognisable humanoid figure. You tend to treasure the little critters more when you need to save all of them (in the harder levels), and there's always the chance that there'll be one more trap waiting for death a few pixels further onward.
Tylenol is no deadlier than any other drug on the market.
From memory from a course I did at university, Tylenol (or Paracetamol, as we call it here) has a very low therapeutic index (ratio of lethal to effective dose), which is unusual for a drug which is commonly used by many people. It happens to be quite a big cause of liver damage worldwide. This wikipedia page seems to agree with that, suggesting a toxic/effective ratio of about 10.
Unfortunately, I can't find other web references for this, can anyone else help out by linking to a list of LD50/ED50 ratios for drugs (in particular, Tylenol)?
FWIW, here's one, which has the following ratios: psilocybin (psychadelic mushrooms): 641 vitamin A: 9637 LSD: 4816 aspirin: 199 nicotine: 21
Okay, I'll say this again, because it doesn't seem to have filtered through to the general population yet. Until the singularity, the human brain will be able to learn more easily than a computer. Please stop trying to teach computers the thought patterns for specific movements, and just provide a neural interface for the brain to work with. The brain will be able to figure out what signals it needs to fire to get the wheelchair moving (or whatever) soon enough.
FWIW, my own idea of how to do this would be to put a few small electrodes into a person's lower arm, far away from the brain (and have a sensitive meter to detect nerve firings). Once the brain figures out what nerves are important for this interface, you then use that interface to deliver signals to operate other equipment.
I'm currently having a similar problem writing my thesis. Luckily, the bit I'm onto at the moment is the "big thing" that I've been working on, but it's still hard to get cracking on writing. Here's a little snippet:
A multi-marker approach for quantifying genetic variation has been demonstrated, using an ideal model population for this task. The benefit of using multiple markers has been previously shown by \citet{marchini05}, who found that a multi-marker approach will generate more informative results, even after considering the multiple-testing cost. The approach here has used a bootstrapping method, which may help in the removal of false positive signal that is common in GWAS \citep[][see]{wellcome07,healy06}.
I've had a go at trying to think through reasons for my writing block, and have narrowed it down to the following:
My subject is too boring (so I end up going off on tangents and doing other unrelated things)
My subject is too interesting (so I end up going off on tangents and doing other related things)
I''m worried that my writing is too simplistic, and I'll end up putting in many things that people already know
I'm worried that I assume too much of my readers, and I'll end up missing out things that no one else considers to be obvious
I read slashdot, digg, etc, and read about interesting random stuff, taking additional time reading comments and articles
I read slashdot, digg, etc, and read about research-related stuff, taking additional time writing emails to my supervisors, and posts on slashdot
I play games too much (distracting myself too much)
I don't play games enough (not getting enough of a break)
My supervisors don't check my chapters quickly enough, so there's not much point in working on later chapters
My supervisors check my chapters too quickly, so I don't have time to work on other chapters
...
Profit
I suppose I could keep going for another hour or so, but I have a thesis to write.
Just use a very large sample of randomly chosen genes.
And there you hit the crux of it. If the features / markers are randomly chosen, then there is less of a problem.
It is possible to select a set of features (I'm assuming a situation in which all these groups can be genotyped / phenotyped) that demonstrates that one of Republicans/Democrats are more similar to Nazis than the other, but those differences would likely disappear once the selection of features was random.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to select these things at random. Humans have a tendency to see patterns even when they don't exist (i.e. the false positives I mentioned before), and jump on these as being significant.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS has recently also described cloud computing as nebulous (I think it's the second question, about 40s in):
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Richard_Stallman_Talk_2009-10-09_part5.ogv
I began my course in genetics with essentially this programming goal in mind (making bad biological software better). Now I've got enough genetic theory under my belt to have a crack at something like this (although my practice is mostly low-level clinical biochemistry). Just a few more months...
Just watch out for the toner issues if you're a penny pincher. I've seen a Brother printer that mentioned being out of toner before the pages started looking bad, something to do with a page counter that stopped any use beyond a certain limit. The cartridge got topped up at a second-hand place (who probably didn't know about this issue), and still complained about being empty when it was full.
http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/forums/laser/39806
Right, got it. You teach people who are interested in engineering a new combined car/boat/plane that's big enough to have a little farm inside, with harpoons and guns on the outside for shooting fish that are in aquariums in banks (targetting controlled by computer, of course).
Sorry, I'm not quite up to scratch with those new-fangled DVDs-per-second-7000kilometers. How many library of congresses per leap-year.light-year is that?
I found it:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39082
If anyone's interested in a link to a US patent for this stuff, here it is:
http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20050037189/fulltext.html
From my brief read, this looks like it's a dilatant sealed inside a foam/gas matrix. The patent refers to Dow Corning catalogue number 3179. The datasheet for that suggests it's a pink compound, not orange:
http://www.dowcorning.com/applications/search/default.aspx?R=7753EN
There is just no way to improve this until you fit your shock absorber with little rockets and sensors to determine when it's about to impact the ground.
A bit like this, perhaps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgXXCSlt7uI
They didn't address what happens if you constantly send the same unit back in time from multiple points in your stream to generate an army at one point. I guess the 'update waves' are a function to control that.
Er, yes they did. Gameplay overview video, about 2:28, 2:45 and 3:20.
In an attempt to summarise, this is a valid tactic, but sending units back in time consumes chronoenergy (more consumed the further back they are sent), so there's an energy limit to the size of your army.
What about Bruce?
You keep calling me kid even tough you don't know my age. Stop being condescending. I am not a kid, and you are being rude.
Well, since you asked so kindly, the Google suggests that you'll turn 32 near the end of November this year. I'm assuming that's you, because that user (same ID) mentioned a home location in Portugal, and you have mentioned in previous /. posts that you live in Portugal.
Your confrontational behaviour is child-like, even if your age suggests otherwise. Oh, and mind the trolls on slashdot. They're all over the place....
I have plenty more:
http://user.interface.org.nz/~gringer/iopencd/browser/home.html
As the great Steve Ballmer once said, "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!"
As the great Richard Stallman once said, "Free software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and change."
You can always expect problems when you're transporting large things along a windy road. I'm sure the initial issues will blow over, and they'll tackle the remainder with much gusto.
And also, from the general FAQ:
Visits to non-banned sites on the same servers as banned sites will have to go through the DIA's filter server and will then be forwarded out to the real server through the DIA's internet connection. This will have some impact on performance, although the extent will largely depend on how good the performance of the DIA's filter is, and whether they have enough internet bandwidth to be able to service the requests they pass through.
So, to slow down the filter, I need to find a non-banned site on the same server as a banned site, then access a large file. According to the technical FAQ, the address of the requesting computer won't get logged. A working DOS would need bandwidth greater than that of the DIA, which is likely to be rather difficult.
From the technical FAQ:
When a user requests a web page there are three possible outcomes:
So, if I want to put a black mark on someone, I look at the list of banned URLs, and put a hyperlink somewhere so that that person will click through to a banned URL. I could also put a message on the original page saying something like, "if you get an 'access is refused'" message, go back and click on the link again. It's worth it!"
Plus histones, methylation, imprinting, a few thousand proteins, and a few pieces of RNA to bootstrap the transcription/translation.
Lemmings was a game that occasionally invoked a few gulps from me. It was hardly realistic graphics -- this was a game built on the idea of making creature graphics as small (pixel-wise) as possible yet still produce a recognisable humanoid figure. You tend to treasure the little critters more when you need to save all of them (in the harder levels), and there's always the chance that there'll be one more trap waiting for death a few pixels further onward.
er, I think the point of the parent post is that differences would be found when they don't actually exist.
In other words, seeing patterns that aren't there. False positives. etc.
Which makes me wonder if any double-blind trials have been done where they test a drug against itself.
Tylenol is no deadlier than any other drug on the market.
From memory from a course I did at university, Tylenol (or Paracetamol, as we call it here) has a very low therapeutic index (ratio of lethal to effective dose), which is unusual for a drug which is commonly used by many people. It happens to be quite a big cause of liver damage worldwide. This wikipedia page seems to agree with that, suggesting a toxic/effective ratio of about 10.
Unfortunately, I can't find other web references for this, can anyone else help out by linking to a list of LD50/ED50 ratios for drugs (in particular, Tylenol)?
FWIW, here's one, which has the following ratios:
psilocybin (psychadelic mushrooms): 641
vitamin A: 9637
LSD: 4816
aspirin: 199
nicotine: 21
But I don't think there is any logical successor to Blu-Ray except for downloads.
How about holographic storage?
Okay, I'll say this again, because it doesn't seem to have filtered through to the general population yet. Until the singularity, the human brain will be able to learn more easily than a computer. Please stop trying to teach computers the thought patterns for specific movements, and just provide a neural interface for the brain to work with. The brain will be able to figure out what signals it needs to fire to get the wheelchair moving (or whatever) soon enough.
FWIW, my own idea of how to do this would be to put a few small electrodes into a person's lower arm, far away from the brain (and have a sensitive meter to detect nerve firings). Once the brain figures out what nerves are important for this interface, you then use that interface to deliver signals to operate other equipment.
Well, if Exchange rates are the reason for the high price, why don't people purchase the thing without Exchange? It was a silly program anyway.
I'm currently having a similar problem writing my thesis. Luckily, the bit I'm onto at the moment is the "big thing" that I've been working on, but it's still hard to get cracking on writing. Here's a little snippet:
A multi-marker approach for quantifying genetic variation has been
demonstrated, using an ideal model population for this task. The
benefit of using multiple markers has been previously shown by
\citet{marchini05}, who found that a multi-marker approach will
generate more informative results, even after considering the
multiple-testing cost. The approach here has used a bootstrapping
method, which may help in the removal of false positive signal that is
common in GWAS \citep[][see]{wellcome07,healy06}.
I've had a go at trying to think through reasons for my writing block, and have narrowed it down to the following:
I suppose I could keep going for another hour or so, but I have a thesis to write.
Just use a very large sample of randomly chosen genes.
And there you hit the crux of it. If the features / markers are randomly chosen, then there is less of a problem.
It is possible to select a set of features (I'm assuming a situation in which all these groups can be genotyped / phenotyped) that demonstrates that one of Republicans/Democrats are more similar to Nazis than the other, but those differences would likely disappear once the selection of features was random.
Unfortunately, it's difficult to select these things at random. Humans have a tendency to see patterns even when they don't exist (i.e. the false positives I mentioned before), and jump on these as being significant.