You need to start them on FOSS first, otherwise they'll get confused about two different things, namely the programs and the operating system. Once people have got used to LibreOffice and Firefox (as an example of the first programs to feed them), it's much easier to transition to Linux -- "It's Firefox, I know this" rather than "It's a Unix system, I know this."
The post's author is calling math, physics and comp-sci "natural sciences" and apparently considers statistics to be "social science". I'm a geology professor and, as far as I'm aware, my colleagues and I tend to consider Earth, environmental, and biological sciences to be the "natural sciences"; physics, chemistry, engineering, and any math to be "physical science"; and psychology, sociology, (cultural) anthropology, etc. to be "social sciences".
My mental image of natural science also includes biology, geology and ecology in the "natural sciences". I'd consider maths and comp-sci to be too abstract to be a natural science (something like the study of patterns and algorithms rather than the observation of patterns and algorithms).
If you're running that command in a plain shell outside of screen, it may not complete. Specifically, ifdown would complete, closing all TCP connections, including your SSH session. When sshd dies, it closes its pseudo-tty, and kills all commands spawned in that tty, including the shell that was forking an ifup process. It's a classic race condition. It may have time to start and run ifup before the tty is killed, but it may not.
Bingo. I'm not sure if this particular computer didn't have screen installed at the time (and I couldn't install it due to no Internet connection), or if I was just a bit more brainless than usual that day.
Kind of like how it's a bad idea to mess with a host's eth0 settings if you're currently logged in via ssh through eth0.
Yeah, I learnt that one. I was able to connect to a data processing server via the work intranet, but not connect to any external websites (e.g. for updating packages). I thought maybe the network connection might need to be re-established, so I had a go at 'ifdown eth0; ifup eth0;'. The server was in a locked basement that I didn't have access to in a building 5 mins away, so it took a while to get things up and running again.
How close are they from creating a person from picked genes and how does that affect evolution?
Choosing a fertilized egg based on its genetics is already possible through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. To do this, you need in-vitro fertilisation. This was the situation that was portrayed in Gattaca. If you have sex to get babies, you're stuck with randomness within the limits of your (and your partner's) genes.
In 2005, it was possible to genotype about 5 different genetic variants from a single cell. Now it's possible to do a few tens of thousand, as long as you're willing to deal with a bit of error (you need the whole genome to be amplified up to readable amounts first). I expect that the oxford nanopore technology will make single-cell full genome sequencing a possibility without whole-genome amplification.
Who makes Saverin's fires cool? Who paves roads and bridges too? We do! We do! Who sends mail to work and home? Who treats shit and pumps it round? We do! We do! Who protects the streets from crime? Who keeps Saverin's hope alive? We do! We do!
of course, Goldbach was a bit before Ring theory, so may not have been referring strictly to "todays" integers, or prime elements in the set of integers (i.e. including negative numbers).
All the players work out the maximum bid and the player who made it - without revealing the other bids - and the winner gets the piece they bid for.
Surely that should be minimum bid? Otherwise all I need to do in order to win is to bid the highest possible value, and then I get the entire cake.
If the person with the lowest bid "wins" then each person is forced to balance between a bid that's too high (not getting the current piece) and a bid that's too low (not getting enough of the cake).
If they aren't already doing this, an open source product should make it a bit easier for the malware writers to test out how well hidden their product is (or how closely it represents the noise experienced during a normal day of computing).
Your ISP does not see the information you transmit if it's encrypted, or email, chat, etc.
If you're taking a paranoid view, a slight clarification is needed here. Your ISP does not see the unencrypted information you transmit if it's encrypted, or email, chat, etc., as long as they do not have the means to decrypt that data.
I agree that it's perhaps not the best idea for cancer genome sequencing, but current 2nd-generation sequencing should be beneficial for the standard human genome. Even at a cost of $10,000 per person, you may be able to substitute a single expensive drug for a substantially cheaper generic when knowing that a person has (or doesn't have) a particular mutation. As long as the sequencing is high enough quality (as you should get from a long paired-end Illumina run), it only needs to be done once, and then can be re-used for whatever new genetic discoveries come your way.
I've wondered for a couple of years now why drug companies aren't already doing this (or at least subsidising the cost of sequencing). Some drugs have been brought back from the brink of rejection via genetic tests, and given the high cost of drug research it makes sense to do a relatively cheap genome sequencing if it hasn't been done on a person previously. The cost of whole-genome (and whole-transcriptome) sequencing is now in the range where research institutes are starting to consider it as a routine operation, and it won't be long before it falls into the price range of a cost-conscious consumer.
Reading that article kept bringing forward more "oh no" realisations, stemming from the following points:
like time, the SCN cannot decrement. It must always tick forward
when Oracle databases link to each other, maintaining data consistency requires them to synchronize to a common SCN. This is necessarily the highest SCN carried by any participating Oracle database
If the soft limit [16384 times the number of seconds since 00:00:00 01/01/1988] is exceeded, the database can become unstable and/or unavailable.
The "recovery" for exceeding the soft limit is to shut down the databases until the SCN goes below the soft limit. From then on, you just have to hope that no databases you're synchronising with will have a SCN that is close to (or beyond) this soft limit.
But these changes will not transfer into the descendants of the guy who was changed still in the womb unless they're exposed to precisely the same factors and change in the same way. It's not a "lasting" change like a genetic one.
Repapetilto was asking about epigenetic effects. I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that epigenetic effects are transferred through to offspring, but I was giving an example that was almost this situation.
The current belief is that epigenetic effects occur within a generation and do not get carried through to children:
There are examples of epigenetic modifications of somatic cells (that increase fitness) being transferred to gametes?
While this TED talk is not talking about transfer to gametes, it indicates that exposure to different environmental factors while in the womb can have an impact on development later in life:
But, if you won't read it, here are some one/two-sentence points from that article:
Give the programmer some credit for basic intelligence: if the program really didn't work at all, they would probably have noticed
One of the very best ways you can report a bug is by showing it to the programmer.
If you have to report a bug to a programmer who can't be present in person, the aim of the exercise is to enable them to reproduce the problem.
Describe what happened. Tell them exactly what you saw. Tell them why you think what you saw is wrong; better still, tell them exactly what you expected to see.
When something goes wrong, immediately stop doing anything. Don't touch any buttons at all. Look at the screen and notice everything out of the ordinary, and remember it or write it down.
Using your intelligence to help the programmer is fine. Even if your deductions are wrong, the programmer should be grateful that you at least tried to make their life easier. But report the symptoms as well, or you may well make their life much more difficult instead.
Say "intermittent fault" to any programmer and watch their face fall.
Be specific. Be verbose. Be careful of pronouns. Read what you wrote.
Or Simon's summary:
The first aim of a bug report is to let the programmer see the failure with their own eyes. If you can't be with them to make it fail in front of them, give them detailed instructions so that they can make it fail for themselves.
In case the first aim doesn't succeed, and the programmer can't see it failing themselves, the second aim of a bug report is to describe what went wrong.
Describe everything in detail. State what you saw, and also state what you expected to see. Write down the error messages, especially if they have numbers in.
When your computer does something unexpected, freeze. Do nothing until you're calm, and don't do anything that you think might be dangerous.
By all means try to diagnose the fault yourself if you think you can, but if you do, you should still report the symptoms as well.
Be ready to provide extra information if the programmer needs it. If they didn't need it, they wouldn't be asking for it. They aren't being deliberately awkward. Have version numbers at your fingertips, because they will probably be needed.
Write clearly. Say what you mean, and make sure it can't be misinterpreted.
Above all, be precise. Programmers like precision.
I use a pseudonym and only friend people who I trust enough not to to stupid overly exposing shit.
I think you're missing the point. If you're friending people, then you probably already have a facebook profile. This is about people who don't have a profile, but still have a record of their existence in the facebook system.
It may be that you also have a shadow profile that is (depending on how cautious you are) linked or not linked to your actual profile. This would contain information about you that is generated by those people who you don't trust (i.e. those who do overly exposing shit).
Slashdot Mirror
You need to start them on FOSS first, otherwise they'll get confused about two different things, namely the programs and the operating system. Once people have got used to LibreOffice and Firefox (as an example of the first programs to feed them), it's much easier to transition to Linux -- "It's Firefox, I know this" rather than "It's a Unix system, I know this."
I was going to say, "no, you're a Hick Bogan, not a Higgs Bosun", but then I looked at your username and decided to say it anyway.
Just in case you, or someone else, didn't get the reference:
The Force
I've got hundreds of reinvented one-liner (or other quick script) wheels stashed away on my computer, so was quite pleased by this quote:
having to use a whole bulldozer when you just want to reinvent the wheel slightly doesn't make any sense
I didn't think that was quite punchy enough, so thought up the following alternative phrasing:
There's no need for a bulldozer when all you need is another wheel
The post's author is calling math, physics and comp-sci "natural sciences" and apparently considers statistics to be "social science". I'm a geology professor and, as far as I'm aware, my colleagues and I tend to consider Earth, environmental, and biological sciences to be the "natural sciences"; physics, chemistry, engineering, and any math to be "physical science"; and psychology, sociology, (cultural) anthropology, etc. to be "social sciences".
My mental image of natural science also includes biology, geology and ecology in the "natural sciences". I'd consider maths and comp-sci to be too abstract to be a natural science (something like the study of patterns and algorithms rather than the observation of patterns and algorithms).
If you're running that command in a plain shell outside of screen, it may not complete. Specifically, ifdown would complete, closing all TCP connections, including your SSH session. When sshd dies, it closes its pseudo-tty, and kills all commands spawned in that tty, including the shell that was forking an ifup process. It's a classic race condition. It may have time to start and run ifup before the tty is killed, but it may not.
Bingo. I'm not sure if this particular computer didn't have screen installed at the time (and I couldn't install it due to no Internet connection), or if I was just a bit more brainless than usual that day.
Kind of like how it's a bad idea to mess with a host's eth0 settings if you're currently logged in via ssh through eth0.
Yeah, I learnt that one. I was able to connect to a data processing server via the work intranet, but not connect to any external websites (e.g. for updating packages). I thought maybe the network connection might need to be re-established, so I had a go at 'ifdown eth0; ifup eth0;'. The server was in a locked basement that I didn't have access to in a building 5 mins away, so it took a while to get things up and running again.
How close are they from creating a person from picked genes and how does that affect evolution?
Choosing a fertilized egg based on its genetics is already possible through pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. To do this, you need in-vitro fertilisation. This was the situation that was portrayed in Gattaca. If you have sex to get babies, you're stuck with randomness within the limits of your (and your partner's) genes.
In 2005, it was possible to genotype about 5 different genetic variants from a single cell. Now it's possible to do a few tens of thousand, as long as you're willing to deal with a bit of error (you need the whole genome to be amplified up to readable amounts first). I expect that the oxford nanopore technology will make single-cell full genome sequencing a possibility without whole-genome amplification.
Who makes Saverin's fires cool?
Who paves roads and bridges too?
We do! We do!
Who sends mail to work and home?
Who treats shit and pumps it round?
We do! We do!
Who protects the streets from crime?
Who keeps Saverin's hope alive?
We do! We do!
Everyone knows integers only go from 0 to 4294967295!
That's quite large.
of course, Goldbach was a bit before Ring theory, so may not have been referring strictly to "todays" integers, or prime elements in the set of integers (i.e. including negative numbers).
If you're talking about integers (which this conjecture refers to), then that's easy:
2 = 5 + -3
0 is trivial:
0 = p + -p for all prime numbers p
1 is also fairly easy:
1 = 3 + -2
And just to complete this, here's 3:
3 = 5 + -2
[multiplication by a unit, in this case -1, does not change the "primeness" of a number]
All the players work out the maximum bid and the player who made it - without revealing the other bids - and the winner gets the piece they bid for.
Surely that should be minimum bid? Otherwise all I need to do in order to win is to bid the highest possible value, and then I get the entire cake.
If the person with the lowest bid "wins" then each person is forced to balance between a bid that's too high (not getting the current piece) and a bid that's too low (not getting enough of the cake).
I have an animated SVG presentation of a cave strucure here.
If they aren't already doing this, an open source product should make it a bit easier for the malware writers to test out how well hidden their product is (or how closely it represents the noise experienced during a normal day of computing).
Your ISP does not see the information you transmit if it's encrypted, or email, chat, etc.
If you're taking a paranoid view, a slight clarification is needed here. Your ISP does not see the unencrypted information you transmit if it's encrypted, or email, chat, etc., as long as they do not have the means to decrypt that data.
I agree that it's perhaps not the best idea for cancer genome sequencing, but current 2nd-generation sequencing should be beneficial for the standard human genome. Even at a cost of $10,000 per person, you may be able to substitute a single expensive drug for a substantially cheaper generic when knowing that a person has (or doesn't have) a particular mutation. As long as the sequencing is high enough quality (as you should get from a long paired-end Illumina run), it only needs to be done once, and then can be re-used for whatever new genetic discoveries come your way.
I've wondered for a couple of years now why drug companies aren't already doing this (or at least subsidising the cost of sequencing). Some drugs have been brought back from the brink of rejection via genetic tests, and given the high cost of drug research it makes sense to do a relatively cheap genome sequencing if it hasn't been done on a person previously. The cost of whole-genome (and whole-transcriptome) sequencing is now in the range where research institutes are starting to consider it as a routine operation, and it won't be long before it falls into the price range of a cost-conscious consumer.
Reading that article kept bringing forward more "oh no" realisations, stemming from the following points:
The "recovery" for exceeding the soft limit is to shut down the databases until the SCN goes below the soft limit. From then on, you just have to hope that no databases you're synchronising with will have a SCN that is close to (or beyond) this soft limit.
But these changes will not transfer into the descendants of the guy who was changed still in the womb unless they're exposed to precisely the same factors and change in the same way. It's not a "lasting" change like a genetic one.
Repapetilto was asking about epigenetic effects. I don't think there's enough evidence to suggest that epigenetic effects are transferred through to offspring, but I was giving an example that was almost this situation.
The current belief is that epigenetic effects occur within a generation and do not get carried through to children:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Evolution
This section suggests that any epigenetic marks transferred to sperm are removed at fertilisation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetics#Removal_of_epigenetic_marks
There are examples of epigenetic modifications of somatic cells (that increase fitness) being transferred to gametes?
While this TED talk is not talking about transfer to gametes, it indicates that exposure to different environmental factors while in the womb can have an impact on development later in life:
http://www.ted.com/talks/annie_murphy_paul_what_we_learn_before_we_re_born.html
Simon Tatham has a good writeup about bug reporting. It's a great article, well worth the read.
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html
But, if you won't read it, here are some one/two-sentence points from that article:
Or Simon's summary:
Describe everything in detail. State what you saw, and also state what you expected to see. Write down the error messages, especially if they have numbers in.
It doesn't matter
Here's my list:
http://user.interface.org.nz/~gringer/iopencd/browser/home.html
Which reminds me... I should update that CD and replace OpenOffice with Libreoffice.
no child could bring a soccer ball, football, volleyball or even tennis ball
Better learn cricket or hockey then. Those games have nice soft balls that are completely armless.
I use a pseudonym and only friend people who I trust enough not to to stupid overly exposing shit.
I think you're missing the point. If you're friending people, then you probably already have a facebook profile. This is about people who don't have a profile, but still have a record of their existence in the facebook system.
It may be that you also have a shadow profile that is (depending on how cautious you are) linked or not linked to your actual profile. This would contain information about you that is generated by those people who you don't trust (i.e. those who do overly exposing shit).