Go watch "Love Me" (available on Netflix) about Ukrainian "mail order" brides. Those guys are charging ten bucks per message from the guy to the woman. Ostensibly because of the translation services they off. One of the dudes on there was out $10k on messages to one woman alone.
I wonder about that. Most fields are niche fields and you can write a short title in a niche field because the papers are generally pitched at others in your field. A while ago I changed sub-fields (not even fields) and I had learn a whole new jargon and culture to make sense of the papers.
One of the ISPs in Switzerland did this but for paying customers. It's an opt-in system. If you opt your router into the pool then you are free to use other's routers when you're out and about. I believe each router has two radios: one is the private and one the public.
Sounds clever, I'll keep an eye out for it if my Roomba dies. Probably we just have different sized homes. Mine is 70 sq. m, and has 4 or 5 rooms (depends how you count). It gets back to the charging station most of the time. Sometimes I'll lock it in one room if I want that space done more thoroughly.
I live in three bedroom apartment and it works just fine for me. Previously I lived in a single-story house: same deal. I wouldn't say one per room is needed unless you live in a mansion. I think you're over-rating the "stupidity" problem somewhat. The machine can and does cover the room. It just takes it longer than it should, but it does do it.
Yeah, they're "stupid" in the sense that the vacuuming path is semi-random. Can't say I care, though. I set mine going in the mornings and most days when I get back the thing is full of dust and dog hair and has docked successfully. The only impact the stupidity has on me is that that the machine needs running *every* day, since by chance on some days it might miss a room or spend little time in a room.
I'm not sure how I feel about this research...and that's pretty much why I'm all for this. We don't understand enough to be able to say whether or not this should be happening, and this is the best way we know how to move forward.
Do you think it poses more ethical problems than performing animal experiments on, say, mice? I do not think it does because adult mice are more advanced than this brain. Since we allow mouse experiments, I don't see why we don't allow experiments on cultured brains.
Economically, going to the moon was a failure. What i mean by this is: it lowered living standards for those on earth, because the resources consumed in doing it, did not create anything useful that allowed the same amount to be created.
Do you have any citation for the lowered living standards other than extrapolating from "resources were consumed" and "nothing useful was created". I don't think economics works in this simple way.
For me, hurting (even killing) 3 out of 10 pedestrians still sounds quite bad.
Unless we know what the video feed is we can't make that statement. Are these pedestrians crossing the road or on the sidewalk? If the algorithm is missing 3 out of 10 sidewalk pedestrains that's much less serious than 3 out of 10 crossing the road. I suspect the idea behind the visual search is to identify people who could potentially cross the road so the car can slow down in anticipation. People actually on the road, in front of the car, can be spotted in other ways using other sensors.
Collecting the data is the actual work. Any idiot with a computer can make the analysis. And draw the wrong conclusions from that.
It's a shame that so many people seem to agree with this. I would put it exactly the opposite: any idiot can be trained to collect data; knowing
Both are hard. I've done both and I can assure you that I find gathering data is often not easy. It obviously depends what you're doing, but in my field a good experimentalist is highly regarded. Things often don't work and debugging your protocols takes brains. I agree that it's stupid to say "Any idiot with a computer can make the analysis". I'd love the fool who said that to come and look over my shoulder for day.
Guess that depends on just how much of that ~0.15% is used to drive change and affect policy for millions of citizens.
Don't dismiss what these papers are used for. We're not exactly gathering thousands of minds together to document how to build a lemonade stand.
I think you're talking about the impact of big science on society and funding. This is an interesting question but it's a different one to how many authors are on the papers, which is what the article is about. The article implies that we're entering an era where huge multi-author papers are common. This isn't so because the phenomenon they are describing accounts of a small fraction of a percent of all published papers. The phenomenon they are describing is not a big deal. The content of the science itself (and the money it commands) is a different issue.
But the question is actually if it makes sense to have many authors on a paper. If you have 10 or more it should already raise a warning flag.
One of the examples they highlight is CERN, where thousands of researchers do indeed contribute. Since the current way of assigning credit in academic circles is to put people on a paper, it's hard to see what else can be done. Yes, it's a bit weird but it happens very rarely. I don't see what the "warning flag" is being raised in aid of. There's no reason to think the science is worse in a large author count paper. If I was interviewing someone with only authorship in high author count papers then I'd ask the the appropriate questions. Then again, I'd likely ask those questions anyway. I've interviewed first authors (of a paper with under 5 authors) who couldn't explain the analyses described in the article. There are warning flags, but the number of authors likely isn't one of them.
Yes, there's a trend going upwards but there are only 1,400 papers with 50 or more authors. In 2009 about 1 million biomedical papers were published. So if we make the unlikely assumption that all the high author number papers are biomedical, that means that a whopping ~0.15% of the papers published each year have more than 50 authors. Not exactly a big deal.
I have tried Linux. First off there are way too many versions and everyone trumps their personal favorite, none of which seem to be actually superior. So solid advice is difficult to come by.
There is plenty of "solid advice." It's up to you to integrate it and make a choice. It's not that hard: look at the two or three most popular distros and choose one. Once you can use one, switching to another is trivial. Frankly, other than the selection of packages, the differences between them aren't substantial.
There is the SystemD wars...This alone would be enough to drive new people away.
I'd be surprised if new users even knew about this. It's not relevant to a beginner.
The video drivers were horrid. (my system is AMD based) It won't run many of my programs without a windows emulator that also wont run many of my programs.(mostly just doesn't run things well) None of the open source alternatives seemed superior to me, at best they were good, but not great.
I don't know about AMD, but the NVIDIA drivers have always been fine for me.
I'm a driver that does graphic arts and photography as a hobby, game, movies, music...that sort of thing.
Maybe Linux isn't useful to you. Especially if, as you say later, you have little interest in learning.
But with these data slurping practices, and their haughty arrogance about it, this is not going to fly in anywhere that matters,...
Where it really matters is at Joe end user. It's the millions of Joes out there running Windows that gives it its user base and makes it "the standard." Joe mostly doesn't care about the data snooping (he uses Facebook anyway). However, Joe does like the fancy new features: the nice Weather and News icons on the task bar. The way Win 10 integrates with his other devices, etc.
That's true, but the distribution of number of deaths from individual incidents is different. As you say, this may not be relevant for safety stats, but it could be relevant in other analyses. e.g. if you want to explore clusters of the events.
I don't know about those times scales, but femto-second pulsed lasers are damn useful for imaging. Briefly, say the experimenter images green fluorescence. Normally, to get green fluorescence you need to excite with blue light of, say, 450 nm. However, if you can pack enough photons into a short packet then you can also get green fluorescence at about double the wavelength. It's called "two photon absorption" and won a Nobel prize. So you pump in 900 nm light and get back green. The advantage is that longer wavelengths are scattered less by biological tissue and, crucially, the depth of field is much better so there is very little out of focus emitted green light (see image in link). Because the laser scans over the specimen relatively slowly (e.g. a few times a second), you can collect scattered green photons and still assign them back to where they came from. So it's very efficient. Maybe this new laser will all for the process to work efficiently with 3 or even 4 photons.
My machine is by no means blisteringly fast and I built it for chump change but I've got 500GB of SSD, 16GB of RAM and eight cores. I give a shit about bloat. In principle, I care very much. In practice, it is not really affecting me any more.
So what specs would qualify as "blisteringly fast." Discounting the graphics card, you can't get the specs of a machine a whole lot higher than what you have now. Yes, you can add more RAM but going beyond 16 GB is only going to be helpful for a small selection of tasks.
This attitude about let's not discuss any possible downside because it will give the anti-vax people ammunition is part of the problem. Often forgotten is that a certain percentage of people who get vaccines die.
Your claim has no source so I'll provide one. Summary there is currently no evidence to support a causal relationship between vaccinations and death. So there is no evidence that vaccines are causing the death of anybody at all. Zero deaths given the huge power of the study (13 million people and 24 million vaccinations).
This is not an anti-vaxxer argument, as those fools think that the vaccine causes problems unrelated to what it is supposed to be preventing.
Indeed, the "anti-vaxxer" argument has nothing to do with the science of vaccines. It has to do with the fundamental right to determine what happens to your own body.
I don't believe that anti-vaxxers are defenders of such "fundamental rights". Any who make these claims are just using weasel words to lend sympathy to their cause by attaching their motives to a political/moral concept with which some non-anti-vaxxers might agree. In reality they're just conspiracy theorists, who through willful ignorance do not understand vaccination and therefore reject it. IMO those who are defending the "fundamental right to determine what happens to your own body" are people like euthanasia and abortion activists. Anti-vaxxers are just the same class of idiot as those who say they get cancer from Wifi.
But if a hacker actually gives a crap about what he's doing and actually wants to get into your accounts, a system like this is well-known enough that he could guess your passwords to other sites once he knows one of them.
I don't think that's such a worry for a few reasons. Firstly, it's easy to not make it very super obvious that this scheme is being used. Secondly, your scenario is only a only a concern if a targeted attack is being performed against me personally. i.e. someone cares enough to look at my password and try to figure out if it means something. The scheme would protect me if my details were harvested amongst thousands of others in a large-scale attack on a site. Thirdly, the attacker needs to know usernames on other sites as well as passwords. Fourthly, I tweak the scheme slightly for more important sites such that I still can remember the password but it can't be inferred should someone have guessed the scheme and are trying to break in.
Yeah, except I'm sure they break half of the password policies at various sites anyway. That's the primary reason I started using a password manager -- even if I used a system like yours, I'd still have to remember all the random constraints on passwords for a various sites.
Slashdot Mirror
where the gateway drug idea came from.
Go watch "Love Me" (available on Netflix) about Ukrainian "mail order" brides. Those guys are charging ten bucks per message from the guy to the woman. Ostensibly because of the translation services they off. One of the dudes on there was out $10k on messages to one woman alone.
I wonder about that. Most fields are niche fields and you can write a short title in a niche field because the papers are generally pitched at others in your field. A while ago I changed sub-fields (not even fields) and I had learn a whole new jargon and culture to make sense of the papers.
One of the ISPs in Switzerland did this but for paying customers. It's an opt-in system. If you opt your router into the pool then you are free to use other's routers when you're out and about. I believe each router has two radios: one is the private and one the public.
Sounds clever, I'll keep an eye out for it if my Roomba dies. Probably we just have different sized homes. Mine is 70 sq. m, and has 4 or 5 rooms (depends how you count). It gets back to the charging station most of the time. Sometimes I'll lock it in one room if I want that space done more thoroughly.
I live in three bedroom apartment and it works just fine for me. Previously I lived in a single-story house: same deal. I wouldn't say one per room is needed unless you live in a mansion. I think you're over-rating the "stupidity" problem somewhat. The machine can and does cover the room. It just takes it longer than it should, but it does do it.
Yeah, they're "stupid" in the sense that the vacuuming path is semi-random. Can't say I care, though. I set mine going in the mornings and most days when I get back the thing is full of dust and dog hair and has docked successfully. The only impact the stupidity has on me is that that the machine needs running *every* day, since by chance on some days it might miss a room or spend little time in a room.
I'm not sure how I feel about this research...and that's pretty much why I'm all for this. We don't understand enough to be able to say whether or not this should be happening, and this is the best way we know how to move forward.
Do you think it poses more ethical problems than performing animal experiments on, say, mice? I do not think it does because adult mice are more advanced than this brain. Since we allow mouse experiments, I don't see why we don't allow experiments on cultured brains.
Economically, going to the moon was a failure. What i mean by this is: it lowered living standards for those on earth, because the resources consumed in doing it, did not create anything useful that allowed the same amount to be created.
Do you have any citation for the lowered living standards other than extrapolating from "resources were consumed" and "nothing useful was created". I don't think economics works in this simple way.
For me, hurting (even killing) 3 out of 10 pedestrians still sounds quite bad.
Unless we know what the video feed is we can't make that statement. Are these pedestrians crossing the road or on the sidewalk? If the algorithm is missing 3 out of 10 sidewalk pedestrains that's much less serious than 3 out of 10 crossing the road. I suspect the idea behind the visual search is to identify people who could potentially cross the road so the car can slow down in anticipation. People actually on the road, in front of the car, can be spotted in other ways using other sensors.
This is true, but overgrow shut down under odd circumstances. See also here.
Or extracting their identity through other means, such as gait recognition.
Collecting the data is the actual work. Any idiot with a computer can make the analysis. And draw the wrong conclusions from that.
It's a shame that so many people seem to agree with this. I would put it exactly the opposite: any idiot can be trained to collect data; knowing
Both are hard. I've done both and I can assure you that I find gathering data is often not easy. It obviously depends what you're doing, but in my field a good experimentalist is highly regarded. Things often don't work and debugging your protocols takes brains. I agree that it's stupid to say "Any idiot with a computer can make the analysis". I'd love the fool who said that to come and look over my shoulder for day.
Not exactly a big deal?
Guess that depends on just how much of that ~0.15% is used to drive change and affect policy for millions of citizens.
Don't dismiss what these papers are used for. We're not exactly gathering thousands of minds together to document how to build a lemonade stand.
I think you're talking about the impact of big science on society and funding. This is an interesting question but it's a different one to how many authors are on the papers, which is what the article is about. The article implies that we're entering an era where huge multi-author papers are common. This isn't so because the phenomenon they are describing accounts of a small fraction of a percent of all published papers. The phenomenon they are describing is not a big deal. The content of the science itself (and the money it commands) is a different issue.
But the question is actually if it makes sense to have many authors on a paper. If you have 10 or more it should already raise a warning flag.
One of the examples they highlight is CERN, where thousands of researchers do indeed contribute. Since the current way of assigning credit in academic circles is to put people on a paper, it's hard to see what else can be done. Yes, it's a bit weird but it happens very rarely. I don't see what the "warning flag" is being raised in aid of. There's no reason to think the science is worse in a large author count paper. If I was interviewing someone with only authorship in high author count papers then I'd ask the the appropriate questions. Then again, I'd likely ask those questions anyway. I've interviewed first authors (of a paper with under 5 authors) who couldn't explain the analyses described in the article. There are warning flags, but the number of authors likely isn't one of them.
Yes, there's a trend going upwards but there are only 1,400 papers with 50 or more authors. In 2009 about 1 million biomedical papers were published. So if we make the unlikely assumption that all the high author number papers are biomedical, that means that a whopping ~0.15% of the papers published each year have more than 50 authors. Not exactly a big deal.
I have tried Linux. First off there are way too many versions and everyone trumps their personal favorite, none of which seem to be actually superior. So solid advice is difficult to come by.
There is plenty of "solid advice." It's up to you to integrate it and make a choice. It's not that hard: look at the two or three most popular distros and choose one. Once you can use one, switching to another is trivial. Frankly, other than the selection of packages, the differences between them aren't substantial.
There is the SystemD wars...This alone would be enough to drive new people away.
I'd be surprised if new users even knew about this. It's not relevant to a beginner.
The video drivers were horrid. (my system is AMD based) It won't run many of my programs without a windows emulator that also wont run many of my programs.(mostly just doesn't run things well) None of the open source alternatives seemed superior to me, at best they were good, but not great.
I don't know about AMD, but the NVIDIA drivers have always been fine for me.
I'm a driver that does graphic arts and photography as a hobby, game, movies, music...that sort of thing.
Maybe Linux isn't useful to you. Especially if, as you say later, you have little interest in learning.
But with these data slurping practices, and their haughty arrogance about it, this is not going to fly in anywhere that matters, ...
Where it really matters is at Joe end user. It's the millions of Joes out there running Windows that gives it its user base and makes it "the standard." Joe mostly doesn't care about the data snooping (he uses Facebook anyway). However, Joe does like the fancy new features: the nice Weather and News icons on the task bar. The way Win 10 integrates with his other devices, etc.
I don't get it. You switched to windows 10 from Linux because you like the start menu better?
That's true, but the distribution of number of deaths from individual incidents is different. As you say, this may not be relevant for safety stats, but it could be relevant in other analyses. e.g. if you want to explore clusters of the events.
I don't know about those times scales, but femto-second pulsed lasers are damn useful for imaging. Briefly, say the experimenter images green fluorescence. Normally, to get green fluorescence you need to excite with blue light of, say, 450 nm. However, if you can pack enough photons into a short packet then you can also get green fluorescence at about double the wavelength. It's called "two photon absorption" and won a Nobel prize. So you pump in 900 nm light and get back green. The advantage is that longer wavelengths are scattered less by biological tissue and, crucially, the depth of field is much better so there is very little out of focus emitted green light (see image in link). Because the laser scans over the specimen relatively slowly (e.g. a few times a second), you can collect scattered green photons and still assign them back to where they came from. So it's very efficient. Maybe this new laser will all for the process to work efficiently with 3 or even 4 photons.
My machine is by no means blisteringly fast and I built it for chump change but I've got 500GB of SSD, 16GB of RAM and eight cores. I give a shit about bloat. In principle, I care very much. In practice, it is not really affecting me any more.
So what specs would qualify as "blisteringly fast." Discounting the graphics card, you can't get the specs of a machine a whole lot higher than what you have now. Yes, you can add more RAM but going beyond 16 GB is only going to be helpful for a small selection of tasks.
This attitude about let's not discuss any possible downside because it will give the anti-vax people ammunition is part of the problem. Often forgotten is that a certain percentage of people who get vaccines die.
Your claim has no source so I'll provide one. Summary there is currently no evidence to support a causal relationship between vaccinations and death. So there is no evidence that vaccines are causing the death of anybody at all. Zero deaths given the huge power of the study (13 million people and 24 million vaccinations).
Indeed, the "anti-vaxxer" argument has nothing to do with the science of vaccines. It has to do with the fundamental right to determine what happens to your own body.
I don't believe that anti-vaxxers are defenders of such "fundamental rights". Any who make these claims are just using weasel words to lend sympathy to their cause by attaching their motives to a political/moral concept with which some non-anti-vaxxers might agree. In reality they're just conspiracy theorists, who through willful ignorance do not understand vaccination and therefore reject it. IMO those who are defending the "fundamental right to determine what happens to your own body" are people like euthanasia and abortion activists. Anti-vaxxers are just the same class of idiot as those who say they get cancer from Wifi.
But if a hacker actually gives a crap about what he's doing and actually wants to get into your accounts, a system like this is well-known enough that he could guess your passwords to other sites once he knows one of them.
I don't think that's such a worry for a few reasons. Firstly, it's easy to not make it very super obvious that this scheme is being used. Secondly, your scenario is only a only a concern if a targeted attack is being performed against me personally. i.e. someone cares enough to look at my password and try to figure out if it means something. The scheme would protect me if my details were harvested amongst thousands of others in a large-scale attack on a site. Thirdly, the attacker needs to know usernames on other sites as well as passwords. Fourthly, I tweak the scheme slightly for more important sites such that I still can remember the password but it can't be inferred should someone have guessed the scheme and are trying to break in.
Yeah, except I'm sure they break half of the password policies at various sites anyway. That's the primary reason I started using a password manager -- even if I used a system like yours, I'd still have to remember all the random constraints on passwords for a various sites.
I've never found this to be a problem.