The article says " In animal tests, the stem cells were surrounded in gel and placed at the site of the brain tumor after it had been removed. Their cancer cells then died as they had no defense against the toxins (abstract)." The next step in the research is to try the treatment on humans."
They're missing a few steps. How about the next step is to try the treatment in live mice and see if continuous chemotherapy has harmful effects on their brains? How about animal models in the same order as humans (e.g. monkeys) before you try it in humans?
turns out to be much more traceable than the old fashioned kind, because you need the traceability to verify the transaction and establish who "has" the bitcoins.
33 MB/s is pretty good even for a LAN link. But I think for most users, this may be pretty much irrelevant because for most people, the bottleneck is between your modem and your ISP.
The linked article got it wrong, which is why the summary is wrong. As usual, the linked article is garbage and you have to dig into links you find there to get something close to reality.
If you count HK, China makes up a significant percentage of customers. If you don't count HK, not so much. Apple and Microsoft make products that are very costly with respect to Chinese wage scales.
Nonsense. Let's say your men need 3000 kCal/d and your women need 2000 kCal/d. You can afford to send three women for every two men you eliminate from the crew. It's a no brainer.
Looks like Apple's animation... must by a copyright infringement, or if not that a patent infringement, or if no that just really really bad. Fire up the lawyerbot.
There is no kind of antenna nor any RF signal that is improved by multipath. What MIMO antennas are supposed to do is reduce the detrimental effects of multipath fading.
Competition in the workplace disincentivizes teamwork. Watch any one of those competive "reality" shows some time where all the prize money goes to one winner and see what competition does to people's behavior. They cooperate only insofar as it helps them toward winning and then turn on each other at the first opportunity. They'll work together to eliminate a person they think might beat them in the competition.
You do not want that behavior in the workplace. You want cooperation toward team objectives, and that's what you should reward, and you should discourage behavior that promotes individual success at the expense of team goals, if necessary firing individuals that don't cooperate, even if they are better than average individual performers.
Competition is a valid inter-business strategy where you are trying to win business among a group of businesses in the same market. Or it can be employed within a business between teams but only if there is no possibility of their influencing the other team's success, because you should want both teams to succeed.
In my experience, depending on the position, it takes 2 to 6 months to replace a competent engineer. (Incompetents can be replaced in a week.)
Considering that the AVERAGE engineer's value to the organization necessarily exceeds the cost of employing him, which is something like 150% of salary, that means each engineer you lose (that you didn't intend to lay off), costs 3 to 9 months of an average engineer's salary AT MINIMUM. I'd estimate that the average engineer is worth 3 times his total compensation, so something like 18 months salary is lost with each engineer. If you ballpark the level of the average person lost, it would be an intermediate engineer paid around 77K/yr * 1.5 years salary or about $115K per position.
But if your intent is to NOT replace the missing people, it's a different equation. You only make this decision after deciding that you don't need so many people because you have more people than you need to do the anticipated work. Then you lay off people until you have the desired number.
Exactly so. And there's also this to consider: Historically, there were two major changes in how people worked, in order to greatly increase productivity. The first was the transition from everybody-must-be-a-generalist (e.g. any subsistence culture) to specialization and trade in goods and services made or performed by experts. The second was industrialization. In the industrial society, most people are not experts at anything, but their work consists of doing one very small task repetitively.
In the technical workplace, a workgroup consisting entirely of (somewhat replaceable) generalists means that they never work on any one kind of problem long enough to become expert at it, unless it's very broadly defined like "coding a specified routine in Java according to company standards." Such people are replaceable because you can always hire competent Java programmers and teach them to code to company standards and understand how routines are specified in your workflow.
But you also need experts in defining what routines need to be coded and how they are supposed to interact to achieve big picture goals, and you need creative people to define what big picture goals should be and decide which are most worth pursuing. Those people are hard to develop and hard to replace.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea what you imagine you are trying to say.
The article says " In animal tests, the stem cells were surrounded in gel and placed at the site of the brain tumor after it had been removed. Their cancer cells then died as they had no defense against the toxins (abstract)." The next step in the research is to try the treatment on humans."
They're missing a few steps. How about the next step is to try the treatment in live mice and see if continuous chemotherapy has harmful effects on their brains? How about animal models in the same order as humans (e.g. monkeys) before you try it in humans?
How much less do Italians get to pay for a PC with no operating system loaded than for one with Microsoft Windows?
In principle, maybe. But Apple gives away its software free. It's the hardware itself that's pricey.
And that's just for the wage theft. There's also the issue of the immigration violation.
turns out to be much more traceable than the old fashioned kind, because you need the traceability to verify the transaction and establish who "has" the bitcoins.
Look out, Mark Karpeles.
33 MB/s is pretty good even for a LAN link. But I think for most users, this may be pretty much irrelevant because for most people, the bottleneck is between your modem and your ISP.
The linked article got it wrong, which is why the summary is wrong. As usual, the linked article is garbage and you have to dig into links you find there to get something close to reality.
Reasonably well written summary here: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-f...
Research here: http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
If you regard it as something that doesn't need to be fixed, it's still an interesting question why it is so.
If you count HK, China makes up a significant percentage of customers. If you don't count HK, not so much. Apple and Microsoft make products that are very costly with respect to Chinese wage scales.
Dyson spheres can't be built by either people or gods.
Only a small fraction of that buy Apple or Microsoft products.
Nonsense. Let's say your men need 3000 kCal/d and your women need 2000 kCal/d. You can afford to send three women for every two men you eliminate from the crew. It's a no brainer.
Can they have their legs back when they get to Mars?
Looks like Apple's animation... must by a copyright infringement, or if not that a patent infringement, or if no that just really really bad. Fire up the lawyerbot.
What do you mean? Emacs can emulate vi.
That's the best way to use it.
I wonder if this will make companies like Microsoft and Apple rethink their ties to China.
They're in the business services business now, mostly.
There is no kind of antenna nor any RF signal that is improved by multipath. What MIMO antennas are supposed to do is reduce the detrimental effects of multipath fading.
Yep. There's never any reason to keep the source of information secret from the judge that issues the warrant.
It is illegal.
They have no choice. Congress decides how much money they spend on what.
Competition in the workplace disincentivizes teamwork. Watch any one of those competive "reality" shows some time where all the prize money goes to one winner and see what competition does to people's behavior. They cooperate only insofar as it helps them toward winning and then turn on each other at the first opportunity. They'll work together to eliminate a person they think might beat them in the competition.
You do not want that behavior in the workplace. You want cooperation toward team objectives, and that's what you should reward, and you should discourage behavior that promotes individual success at the expense of team goals, if necessary firing individuals that don't cooperate, even if they are better than average individual performers.
Competition is a valid inter-business strategy where you are trying to win business among a group of businesses in the same market. Or it can be employed within a business between teams but only if there is no possibility of their influencing the other team's success, because you should want both teams to succeed.
In my experience, depending on the position, it takes 2 to 6 months to replace a competent engineer. (Incompetents can be replaced in a week.)
Considering that the AVERAGE engineer's value to the organization necessarily exceeds the cost of employing him, which is something like 150% of salary, that means each engineer you lose (that you didn't intend to lay off), costs 3 to 9 months of an average engineer's salary AT MINIMUM. I'd estimate that the average engineer is worth 3 times his total compensation, so something like 18 months salary is lost with each engineer. If you ballpark the level of the average person lost, it would be an intermediate engineer paid around 77K/yr * 1.5 years salary or about $115K per position.
But if your intent is to NOT replace the missing people, it's a different equation. You only make this decision after deciding that you don't need so many people because you have more people than you need to do the anticipated work. Then you lay off people until you have the desired number.
Exactly so. And there's also this to consider:
Historically, there were two major changes in how people worked, in order to greatly increase productivity. The first was the transition from everybody-must-be-a-generalist (e.g. any subsistence culture) to specialization and trade in goods and services made or performed by experts. The second was industrialization. In the industrial society, most people are not experts at anything, but their work consists of doing one very small task repetitively.
In the technical workplace, a workgroup consisting entirely of (somewhat replaceable) generalists means that they never work on any one kind of problem long enough to become expert at it, unless it's very broadly defined like "coding a specified routine in Java according to company standards." Such people are replaceable because you can always hire competent Java programmers and teach them to code to company standards and understand how routines are specified in your workflow.
But you also need experts in defining what routines need to be coded and how they are supposed to interact to achieve big picture goals, and you need creative people to define what big picture goals should be and decide which are most worth pursuing. Those people are hard to develop and hard to replace.