Recently, I read an interesting article about Apple's market share. A reporter kept seeing different numbers, so decided to do the calculations for himself.
If you read the article carefully, it never says that the robot runs Linux as its operating system. The only mention is this:
The program is written on a Linux platform.
The context is:
The programmers can then map the access path, program the robotic arm to hold the drilling tool and begin the surgery. The program is written on a Linux platform.
I read that to mean that the programmers use Linux to determine all of the details about how the robot is to operate (heh, pun!). All the planning, mapping, and path design is done on Linux. After that, the robot is then programmed to follow that path.
The robot may well run something very basic, used to guide servos and such. There's nothing here which says that Linux portion includes the robot. It may, but there's no information here to assume that.
You didn't post any links or references, so I'm curious. Did this "majority of studies" find a link between abortion and breast cancer, or a link between not carrying a pregnancy to term and breast cancer?
I don't have the references here, so I can't give them. However, I can say that the studies are about the link between "not carrying a pregnancy to term" and breast cancer.
With that said, the medical definition of a miscarriage (which is the other side of not carrying a pregnancy to term) is "spontaneous abortion". So we're talking "abortion" either way, whether it was willful or not.
You're right, people don't generally use boolean logic when speaking. But I think it can apply here. I'll see if I can be more clear - I wasn't clear enough last time.
The sentence in question is
Make trial lawyers and judges, not scientists, responsible for the flow of new products and services.
Let's call scientists group S and trial lawyers and judges group L. (Scientists and Lawyers for mnemonics.) Let's call the responsiblity for new products and services R. That sentence could be rewritten, from a logic viewpoint, as:
Only L should have R. S should not have R.
The assumption is that S has R currently. Not necessarily all of R, but at least some R.
Since S does not necessarily have all of R, your sentence:
who decided that only scientists are capable of designing new products or services?
How about: They monitor everything that passes through a router housed on American soil. If you're British (or Chinese), make sure that your packets never make it to this soil.
This sounds like something that's already handled by international rules of jurisdiction, but IANAL.
Um, wouldn't being opposed to infanticide be pretty much "pro-life"? I mean, the whole point is that they want to keep the infant alive. That's pretty much the definition of "pro-life". They are for life.
You're assuming the converse of the argument. The statement says that "not scientists" should be responsible for the flow of new products or services.
From a logic point of view, this statement assumes (correctly) that, currently, scientists are responsible for some to all new products or services. But it does not require "all" or "only". Just more than one. It allows the case that other people than scientists are currently responsible.
The argument says to remove scientists from the equation.
How about because it's important for people to hear? I for one, read Slashdot every day, but didn't see this. I was rather thankful that Alethes posted this.
The software used to enhance the print is the same that some tabloid newspapers use to create seamless "photographs" of space aliens hanging out with celebrities. Time magazine used a similar program to alter a police mug shot of O.J. Simpson and make his complexion appear darker on its front page in 1994.
Heyer said that shows the software is not a scientific tool, but an unreliable art form that could be used to misrepresent reality or simply create things.
Lemme see if I got this straight... Since photoshop can be used to fake photographs, that means that it can never be used as a scientific tool.
Should we make the same claim for film development equipment? What about scissors and tape?
I'm all for more accountability when it comes to evidence. Having an audit trail for all digital processing is a wonderful solution. That way you can always verify who did what to an image, from start to finish. Heck even if an analyst uses a tool like dodge and burn that requires "painting" onto an image, you can keep a record of the trajectory of the pen stroke used. This isn't rocket science here.
But to claim that a valuable tool of science, because it can also be used to create art, is suddenly invalid, is simply reckless and irresponsible.
(shrug) If anyone thinks that I'm speaking for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, they're crazy. Plus, I could be lying. I'm not, but there's no way that someone could verify that I work at LLNL from the information I provide to Slashdot.
I gotta say, though, the address makes it fun to respond to posts about large data sizes or large machines.:-)
Interesting that you assume that the missionaries in the 50s were Catholic. I don't recall reading that in the article. Methinks you might have a bias/prejudice...
You sir (madam?) deserve a "+6 Informative". Thank you for spending the time clarifying this.
(As a staunch pro-life Catholic here on rabidly pro-abortion Slashdot, I am rather wary of wading into the muck of the abortion debate, just because of the energy involved in holding the discussion. With your information, I know that it's not necessary.)
For those that have ever wondered how many different subatomic particles are currently classified...
I think it must be an artifact of where I work, but my first thought was that subatomic particles aren't classified. Heck, they're freely available for the general public to use!
If they were classified, would they be Secret Restricted Data? Confidential National Security Information? For Official Use Only?:-)
Why can't we just have the wayback machine make exceptions for "interesting moments"? I mean, if the machine can be set to take a snapshot every 60 days or so, I fully believe that it could also be told, "Go take a snapshot of www.some.site.com right now." It would just require a human to identify what are "interesting moments".
Print is inefficient because it's a waste of physical space. In terms of information density, it's hard to come up with a more inefficient use of space than setting 12 point text. I can't speak for Mr. Clavin, but I'd use something more efficient like, oh, say, a hard drive with compressed text and images.
Radical, yes I know... But we gotta move out of the 19th century some time. The 21st is as good a time as any.
Slashdot Mirror
The only 15 letter word that can be spelled without repeating a letter is uncopyrightable.
Questions about whether "uncopyrightable" is a word aside, I found another one that fits your criteria:
dermatoglyphics
The study of the patterns of ridges of the skin of the fingers, palms, toes, and soles.
I think all of these numbers may be wrong.
Recently, I read an interesting article about Apple's market share. A reporter kept seeing different numbers, so decided to do the calculations for himself.
Turns out it's more like 11.6%.
Don't believe me? You can read his analysis here.
That's more than 10 times the market share that Linux has.
The robot may well run something very basic, used to guide servos and such. There's nothing here which says that Linux portion includes the robot. It may, but there's no information here to assume that.
No. If the original poster is correct about QVGA being 240x320, then it's not the same.
The Clie with the graffiti area displayed is 320x320. If you collapse the graffiti area, the display is 320x480.
So the Clie would essentially be 2 QVGA displays stacked.
Does anybody know of anyone that actually needs these abr.'s???
As an employee of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, I can honestly answer "yes." You hear it all the time when people talk about the I/O requirements of various simulations. For example, check out this web page about scalable I/O.
As for ftp, be my guest. Dunno if there's anything you'd find interesting there, though.
You didn't post any links or references, so I'm curious. Did this "majority of studies" find a link between abortion and breast cancer, or a link between not carrying a pregnancy to term and breast cancer?
I don't have the references here, so I can't give them. However, I can say that the studies are about the link between "not carrying a pregnancy to term" and breast cancer.
With that said, the medical definition of a miscarriage (which is the other side of not carrying a pregnancy to term) is "spontaneous abortion". So we're talking "abortion" either way, whether it was willful or not.
The sentence in question isLet's call scientists group S and trial lawyers and judges group L. (Scientists and Lawyers for mnemonics.) Let's call the responsiblity for new products and services R. That sentence could be rewritten, from a logic viewpoint, as:The assumption is that S has R currently. Not necessarily all of R, but at least some R.
Since S does not necessarily have all of R, your sentence:was what I was objecting to. It can be resaid as: which is not a valid conclusion, logically.
Was that clear as mud?
How about: They monitor everything that passes through a router housed on American soil. If you're British (or Chinese), make sure that your packets never make it to this soil.
This sounds like something that's already handled by international rules of jurisdiction, but IANAL.
(nods and shakes head, dejectedly)
It's getting frighteningly close to that book...
I'm starting to think that America as a nation won't last the century.
Um, wouldn't being opposed to infanticide be pretty much "pro-life"? I mean, the whole point is that they want to keep the infant alive. That's pretty much the definition of "pro-life". They are for life.
You're assuming the converse of the argument. The statement says that "not scientists" should be responsible for the flow of new products or services.
From a logic point of view, this statement assumes (correctly) that, currently, scientists are responsible for some to all new products or services. But it does not require "all" or "only". Just more than one. It allows the case that other people than scientists are currently responsible.
The argument says to remove scientists from the equation.
How about because it's important for people to hear? I for one, read Slashdot every day, but didn't see this. I was rather thankful that Alethes posted this.
Should we make the same claim for film development equipment? What about scissors and tape?
I'm all for more accountability when it comes to evidence. Having an audit trail for all digital processing is a wonderful solution. That way you can always verify who did what to an image, from start to finish. Heck even if an analyst uses a tool like dodge and burn that requires "painting" onto an image, you can keep a record of the trajectory of the pen stroke used. This isn't rocket science here.
But to claim that a valuable tool of science, because it can also be used to create art, is suddenly invalid, is simply reckless and irresponsible.
Fair enough.
(shrug) If anyone thinks that I'm speaking for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, they're crazy. Plus, I could be lying. I'm not, but there's no way that someone could verify that I work at LLNL from the information I provide to Slashdot.
:-)
I gotta say, though, the address makes it fun to respond to posts about large data sizes or large machines.
Interesting that you assume that the missionaries in the 50s were Catholic. I don't recall reading that in the article. Methinks you might have a bias/prejudice...
Mildly humorous, but no.
Do you call your current files kilofiles, megafiles, gigafiles, or terafiles?
Yes, I know it's just a joke.
You sir (madam?) deserve a "+6 Informative". Thank you for spending the time clarifying this.
(As a staunch pro-life Catholic here on rabidly pro-abortion Slashdot, I am rather wary of wading into the muck of the abortion debate, just because of the energy involved in holding the discussion. With your information, I know that it's not necessary.)
For those that have ever wondered how many different subatomic particles are currently classified...
:-)
I think it must be an artifact of where I work, but my first thought was that subatomic particles aren't classified. Heck, they're freely available for the general public to use!
If they were classified, would they be Secret Restricted Data? Confidential National Security Information? For Official Use Only?
Yay, you're back!
(I'll see what I can do about those mod points next time I get them...)
Why can't we just have the wayback machine make exceptions for "interesting moments"? I mean, if the machine can be set to take a snapshot every 60 days or so, I fully believe that it could also be told, "Go take a snapshot of www.some.site.com right now." It would just require a human to identify what are "interesting moments".
Uh, you're a troll, but here goes.
Print is inefficient because it's a waste of physical space. In terms of information density, it's hard to come up with a more inefficient use of space than setting 12 point text. I can't speak for Mr. Clavin, but I'd use something more efficient like, oh, say, a hard drive with compressed text and images.
Radical, yes I know... But we gotta move out of the 19th century some time. The 21st is as good a time as any.
What is it with the (seemingly) growing trend of just pasting in the URL, rather than spending the 4 seconds required to make a real, working LINK ?!
Wasn't the whole point of hyperlinking that we wouldn't have to know the underlying mechanism to retrieve the document?
watching the antics of celebrities and athletes as they deal with their illegitimate children in front of the media.
Dunno what it is, but I read that, "as they dangle their illegitimate children in front of the media.
Michael Jackson, anyone?
You haven't been paying attention, have you? :-)