Talk about 50 years behind the times.
This whole idea (ICD-9, but much moreso ICD-10) is predicated on the twentieth-century idea that you can assign a numeric code to every possible state of the human condition.
This (the parent comment) bears repeating and expounding-upon.
Use Shamir's Secret Sharing you can arbitrarily choose the number pieces into which your secret will be broken (N) as well as the minimum number required to reconstitute the secret (M). It is referred to as "M of N."
For example, you could perform the 3 of 5 operation on your master password, distribute 1 piece to your best friend, 1 piece to your lawyer, 1 piece to your sibling, and keep two pieces for yourself in your home safe. Or distribute those two to other trusted persons. Whatever. Any combination of THREE of the five pieces will reconstitute your master password.
You can build in any level of redundancy you wish.
I feel like basic financial management (what is a bank account; why should you save?) is the kind of thing that should be taught in primary and/or secondary schooling. Certainly for a large percentage of people it would be far more useful than (for example) certain mathematics or science classes, and far more beneficial to society as a whole -- and I say this as a person with a degree in mathematics.
[ LIKE ] Be the first of your friends to like this gene!
Re:Oddly... I have a clue about this stuff lately
on
The DNA Data Deluge
·
· Score: 1
If I could add a little bit about CNV -- yes, it can be detected from ExomeSeq and yes you can infer it, to some extent from sequencing depth, given adequate depth.
BUT there are a few caveats.
First, exomeSeq is typically amplicon based and not all amplicons have uniform amplification. Second, while you could make gross calls (heterozygous deletion, 3x or greater amplification) from Exome data alone, it would be hard to say that one area had 1.6x (for example) amplification without really massive sequencing depth. To make better CNV calls with exome data it is useful to have control DNA (as in the arrayCGH technique which has heretofore been the standard for detection of CNV) sequenced under exact same conditions at exact same time in order to do a better genome-wide* circular binary segmentation procedure.
* actually you would probably only want to simulate probes at the center of each exon target region in your whole-exome sequencing kit; this should be available from the kit vendor
...As has been stated before, it's a question of backing. Government-issued currencies are backed up by a promise from the government that they will accept them in payment for taxes and, often, by a legal requirement for merchants to accept them within the relevant country's borders. This guarantees that you will be able to exchange them for goods or services in the future, for as long as the government survives, although it does not guarantee that they will retain the same value.
(emphasis mine)
I wanted to make the very important point that promises can be and are broken.
Regarding the assertion that governments and merchants will accept a currency as long as the government survives, I am glad you added the caveat about no guarantee of value, for that is important, but more importantly governments have and most probably will in the future completely change currencies. You may or may not have an opportunity to exchange.
To be valid, the last step (of which the author makes no mention) should be to compare the three groups to see if their differences are statistically significant. With tens of thousands of clicks, it's likely that they are, but the percentages were awfully close in the 2-3% range.
I wrote to Bruce Perens and David Rowe the following email early July 2010. David Rowe responded, understandably, that his primary area of interest and knowledge is really just in the voice codec itself, and he had no specific comment regarding my proposals for modulation and FEC. Bruce Perens never replied to me, which was a disappointment. Perhaps my note never made it past his spam filter.
So, since there is active discussion going on here (with many folks who know much more about signal engineering than me), I am posting the email its entirety, and I sincerely invite comment about my proposals regarding modulation and FEC (particularly to point out anything which is factually incorrect).
Perhaps Bruce would be willing to comment as well.
====== email below ======
Gentlemen,
I am a newly licensed amateur radio operator, and have read with interest in the past weeks about different modes of digital radio. Having read about D-Star, I recognized the need for an open alternative to AMBE, and then was pleasantly surprised to have run across both of your codec2 project sites.
I wanted to share some of my thoughts regarding this project, especially with respect to the longer-term design goals.
----- VOICE CODEC
I read an old post by David, either on his blog or in a list serve archive, where he asked whether it would be better to (1) release an alpha version of the codec NOW and risk turning people off with poor audio quality or (2) wait for better audio quality before the first release but risk people losing interest and drifting away. I favor early release for the reason that there would be more time for (parallel) development of other softwares around the codec, time to flesh out bugs in the protocol, on-air tests could be conducted, etc. Hardware could even be started in the meantime; the final codec version could later be loaded onto an FPGA.
-----
PROTOCOL DESIGN
Although I certainly see the allure of keeping the existing modem and plugging in a daughterboard to swap AMBE to codec2 (ie, modding existing D*Star HT or mobile), I suggest that a redesign of the protocol altogether may be far more beneficial in the long run.
Presently, as I understand it, D-Star DV allocates its 4800b/s as follows: + 2400 AMBE voice + 1200 of 2/3 FEC ( actually the voice + FEC are included together in a single frame) + 1200 data (no FEC!) (obviously header/overhead/sync is a part of the 1200 data) = GMSK modulated it occupies ca 6.25kHz.
I would like to see it done this way instead: + header with id, routing?, and _specified division of voice and data_ + (3200 voice) OR (3200 data) OR ( 2400 voice + 1200 data) + 1600 FEC for all of above = QPSK modulated it could occupy as little as 3kHz bandwidth (at eff 1.6 ; theoretical max for QPSK is 2 = 2.4kHz bw).
-----
OTHER THOUGHTS
1. If we used QPSK modulation with spectral efficiency of 1.6, we could increase the total data rate to 9600bps while maintaing the same occupied bandwidth of ca. 6kHz.
2. My proposed header specifies that the voice rate is [3200] or [2400] (or, if we bump the total rate to 9600, we could have a maximum of 6400 bps voice data rate with 2/3 FEC) ; the receiver would implement the correct decoding. I don't know how tolerant the current algorithms are of changing the codec bitrate midstream (Speex has VBR though, so I suppose it could work).
3. No. 2, above, is important as data could be streamed intermittently, irrespective of whether or not a voice transmission is taking place.
4. With good filters, 9600 bps could still be GMSK modulated and occupy a standard FM channel width of 12.5kHz but I suppose this is dodgy.
5. I am not as familiar with the tradeoffs of GMSK v. QPSK (power efficiency, SNR, complexity?) and I'm sure there is a good reason GMSK was chosen for D-Star.
6. FEC.
a. D-Star includes no FEC on the header or data frames! The FEC is an integral part of AMBE.
Interesting theory. I like it and will mull on it.
One possible hole in it that immediately comes to mind is that although the North American continent was populated thousands of years ago, it did not develop (technologically, agriculturally) in the same way that Europe did (until, of course, the arrival of Europeans), despite that it was geographically and climatically similar to Europe.
Just something to think about, should you wish to revise your argument.
I am ALSO a resident physician as well as a computer programmer by profession before medical school.
I hear frmo a lot of my colleagues about how CPRS is offered free of charge, "why don't we use that?" and so forth.
What they don't know is that the free CPRS release does not include a billing module, because it is designed for the VA system. Adding a billing module for your hospital or clinic to CPRS (really CPRS is just the frontend to the backend system called VistA) would literally take $MILLIONS and the programmers who can write good M code (yes, CPRS' backend (VistA) is written in M) are few and far between.
It's "running the GAMUT," which means "the full range or compass of something; a range from one extreme to the other"
GAMBIT, on the other hand, means: 1. Chess. an opening in which a player seeks to obtain some advantage by sacrificing a pawn or piece. 2. any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage. 3. a remark made to open or redirect a conversation.
But I could see how they could be confused, they both start with a G and have vowels *rolling eyes*
I see major problems: chief among them are the medical problems listed under "my problems."
"Heart disease" is extremely ambiguous. CHF, or coronary disease? "Blood pressure, low" ? How about "Blood pressure, high" which is not listed and a far more common problem. Kidney disease which is EXTREMELY common is not listed.
Was this part designed by physicians or computer people?
The professor misspelled a basic word -- amalgamation -- as almagamation.
I'm skeptical.
Anyway, the points he or she raises are very valid and disturbing. Having recently completed undergraduate work, I can attest to the widespread cheating as well as the new methods being used to accomplish such. It's quite disheartening for those of us who believe in hard work and scholarship.
Slashdot Mirror
Your [sic] take someone whose resume includes Harvard law prof, State Senator, and US Senator, ...
Barack Obama was never a Harvard Law Professor
Talk about 50 years behind the times. This whole idea (ICD-9, but much moreso ICD-10) is predicated on the twentieth-century idea that you can assign a numeric code to every possible state of the human condition.
This (the parent comment) bears repeating and expounding-upon.
Use Shamir's Secret Sharing you can arbitrarily choose the number pieces into which your secret will be broken (N) as well as the minimum number required to reconstitute the secret (M). It is referred to as "M of N."
For example, you could perform the 3 of 5 operation on your master password, distribute 1 piece to your best friend, 1 piece to your lawyer, 1 piece to your sibling, and keep two pieces for yourself in your home safe. Or distribute those two to other trusted persons. Whatever. Any combination of THREE of the five pieces will reconstitute your master password.
You can build in any level of redundancy you wish.
Moderators asleep at the wheel. Moderated flamebait? It's clearly a pun about quantum states. *sigh*
"This is the most transparent administration in history." --Barack Obama http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/14/obama_this_is_the_most_transparent_administration_in_history.html
I feel like basic financial management (what is a bank account; why should you save?) is the kind of thing that should be taught in primary and/or secondary schooling. Certainly for a large percentage of people it would be far more useful than (for example) certain mathematics or science classes, and far more beneficial to society as a whole -- and I say this as a person with a degree in mathematics.
[ LIKE ] Be the first of your friends to like this gene!
* actually you would probably only want to simulate probes at the center of each exon target region in your whole-exome sequencing kit; this should be available from the kit vendor
Best of luck to you and your family.
Corrected link, sorry: http://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf
...As has been stated before, it's a question of backing. Government-issued currencies are backed up by a promise from the government that they will accept them in payment for taxes and, often, by a legal requirement for merchants to accept them within the relevant country's borders. This guarantees that you will be able to exchange them for goods or services in the future, for as long as the government survives, although it does not guarantee that they will retain the same value.
(emphasis mine)
I wanted to make the very important point that promises can be and are broken.
I would highly recommend the short book Fiat Money Inflation in France by Andrew D. White, the founder and first president of Cornell University. It can be read online for free at: https://mises.org/store/Fiat-Money-Inflation-in-France-P435C1.aspx but I would encourage you to purchase a print copy (for cheap) here: https://mises.org/store/Fiat-Money-Inflation-in-France-P435C1.aspx.
Regarding the assertion that governments and merchants will accept a currency as long as the government survives, I am glad you added the caveat about no guarantee of value, for that is important, but more importantly governments have and most probably will in the future completely change currencies. You may or may not have an opportunity to exchange.
I am just out of points. Best idea I've seen here in years.
To be valid, the last step (of which the author makes no mention) should be to compare the three groups to see if their differences are statistically significant. With tens of thousands of clicks, it's likely that they are, but the percentages were awfully close in the 2-3% range.
Irrelevant.
This article is about basic and translational research.
"Premeds" become physicians. Probably 1% become physician-scientists. Much of the type of work discussed in the article is done by PhDs.
Wrong, it's Beebe. If you're going to punk someone out, make sure not to misspell it.
[Rush]
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice!
[/Rush]
There's a lot more to being a medical doctor than memorizing symptoms. *facepalm* yourself.
I wrote to Bruce Perens and David Rowe the following email early July 2010. David Rowe responded, understandably, that his primary area of interest and knowledge is really just in the voice codec itself, and he had no specific comment regarding my proposals for modulation and FEC. Bruce Perens never replied to me, which was a disappointment. Perhaps my note never made it past his spam filter.
So, since there is active discussion going on here (with many folks who know much more about signal engineering than me), I am posting the email its entirety, and I sincerely invite comment about my proposals regarding modulation and FEC (particularly to point out anything which is factually incorrect).
Perhaps Bruce would be willing to comment as well.
====== email below ======
Gentlemen,
I am a newly licensed amateur radio operator, and have read with interest in the past weeks about different modes of digital radio. Having read about D-Star, I recognized the need for an open alternative to AMBE, and then was pleasantly surprised to have run across both of your codec2 project sites.
I wanted to share some of my thoughts regarding this project, especially with respect to the longer-term design goals.
-----
VOICE CODEC
I read an old post by David, either on his blog or in a list serve archive, where he asked whether it would be better to (1) release an alpha version of the codec NOW and risk turning people off with poor audio quality or (2) wait for better audio quality before the first release but risk people losing interest and drifting away. I favor early release for the reason that there would be more time for (parallel) development of other softwares around the codec, time to flesh out bugs in the protocol, on-air tests could be conducted, etc. Hardware could even be started in the meantime; the final codec version could later be loaded onto an FPGA.
-----
PROTOCOL DESIGN
Although I certainly see the allure of keeping the existing modem and plugging in a daughterboard to swap AMBE to codec2 (ie, modding existing D*Star HT or mobile), I suggest that a redesign of the protocol altogether may be far more beneficial in the long run.
Presently, as I understand it, D-Star DV allocates its 4800b/s as follows:
+ 2400 AMBE voice
+ 1200 of 2/3 FEC ( actually the voice + FEC are included together in a single frame)
+ 1200 data (no FEC!)
(obviously header/overhead/sync is a part of the 1200 data)
= GMSK modulated it occupies ca 6.25kHz.
I would like to see it done this way instead:
+ header with id, routing?, and _specified division of voice and data_
+ (3200 voice) OR (3200 data) OR ( 2400 voice + 1200 data)
+ 1600 FEC for all of above
= QPSK modulated it could occupy as little as 3kHz bandwidth (at eff 1.6 ; theoretical max for QPSK is 2 = 2.4kHz bw).
-----
OTHER THOUGHTS
1. If we used QPSK modulation with spectral efficiency of 1.6, we could increase the total data rate to 9600bps while maintaing the same occupied bandwidth of ca. 6kHz.
2. My proposed header specifies that the voice rate is [3200] or [2400] (or, if we bump the total rate to 9600, we could have a maximum of 6400 bps voice data rate with 2/3 FEC) ; the receiver would implement the correct decoding. I don't know how tolerant the current algorithms are of changing the codec bitrate midstream (Speex has VBR though, so I suppose it could work).
3. No. 2, above, is important as data could be streamed intermittently, irrespective of whether or not a voice transmission is taking place.
4. With good filters, 9600 bps could still be GMSK modulated and occupy a standard FM channel width of 12.5kHz but I suppose this is dodgy.
5. I am not as familiar with the tradeoffs of GMSK v. QPSK (power efficiency, SNR, complexity?) and I'm sure there is a good reason GMSK was chosen for D-Star.
6. FEC.
a. D-Star includes no FEC on the header or data frames! The FEC is an integral part of AMBE.
Interesting theory. I like it and will mull on it.
One possible hole in it that immediately comes to mind is that although the North American continent was populated thousands of years ago, it did not develop (technologically, agriculturally) in the same way that Europe did (until, of course, the arrival of Europeans), despite that it was geographically and climatically similar to Europe.
Just something to think about, should you wish to revise your argument.
I am ALSO a resident physician as well as a computer programmer by profession before medical school.
I hear frmo a lot of my colleagues about how CPRS is offered free of charge, "why don't we use that?" and so forth.
What they don't know is that the free CPRS release does not include a billing module, because it is designed for the VA system. Adding a billing module for your hospital or clinic to CPRS (really CPRS is just the frontend to the backend system called VistA) would literally take $MILLIONS and the programmers who can write good M code (yes, CPRS' backend (VistA) is written in M) are few and far between.
Please, for god's sake editors, do some editing.
It's "running the GAMUT," which means "the full range or compass of something; a range from one extreme to the other"
GAMBIT, on the other hand, means:
1. Chess. an opening in which a player seeks to obtain some advantage by sacrificing a pawn or piece.
2. any maneuver by which one seeks to gain an advantage.
3. a remark made to open or redirect a conversation.
But I could see how they could be confused, they both start with a G and have vowels *rolling eyes*
I miss the classic adventure games -- which were really puzzle games -- like King's Quest, Space Quest, and Monkey Island.
Those had great stories and lots of humor along with reasonable puzzles to be solved.
I think they'd do fine today but no-one seems to make anything quite like those.
As a resident physician at a large US teaching hospital, I wholeheartedly concur.
Many of the systems we're forced to use were clearly designed by programmers (a group of which I include myself) but NOT by physicians (or nurses).
Is that the actual product?
I see major problems: chief among them are the medical problems listed under "my problems."
"Heart disease" is extremely ambiguous. CHF, or coronary disease?
"Blood pressure, low" ? How about "Blood pressure, high" which is not listed and a far more common problem.
Kidney disease which is EXTREMELY common is not listed.
Was this part designed by physicians or computer people?
Otherwise I think you're doing a fine job.
So really you've got two right there -- worst of the worst.
The professor misspelled a basic word -- amalgamation -- as almagamation.
I'm skeptical.
Anyway, the points he or she raises are very valid and disturbing. Having recently completed undergraduate work, I can attest to the widespread cheating as well as the new methods being used to accomplish such. It's quite disheartening for those of us who believe in hard work and scholarship.