I agree: I wouldn't trust Google and will continue running my current ad blocker. I suspect people who don't run an ad blocker (less techy?) might like this new blocker.
I want to keep using a 3rd party extension with the important feature of NOT BEING INSTALLED BY DEFAULT
Simple.... Whatever Ad-Blocker is installed by default will be the ad-blocker that all the websites that want to show Ads spend their efforts detecting and making workarounds for.... workarounds like annoying prompts requiring you to "Whitelist" before being allowed to see the content referenced by the search link you clicked on.
The point is that this ad blocker will let through all compliant ads. So the scenario you're worrying about likely isn't going to happen. It will be easier for people to make their ads compliant rather than trying to find ways around Google's ad blocker. That's the whole idea: to make ads less annoying so fewer people install blanket ad blockers.
Google makes way too much money for something like this to block video ads on YouTube. I'm sure this is more of an effort to make it more difficult for people to identify which ad blocker they should use because there is no way this thing blocks YouTube ads.
It's an effort to push people away from using current blanket ad blockers by getting rid of the most annoying ads. If people follow through they will start to see more ads from Google as they will get rid of their ad blocker. I'm sure that's the thinking, anyway.
In my experience it's not so much fake news they share as that they share more crap and aren't able to tell the difference between trustworthy information and a scam. For example, two days ago an older family friend sent me the following "chain message"
I'LL BE DELETING FACEBOOK! !! Hi I'm Mark Zuckerberg The Director of facebook.
Hello everyone, it seems that all the warnings were real, facebook use will cost money
If you send this string to 18 different from your list, your icon will be blue and it will be free for you.
If you do not believe me tomorrow at 6 pm that facebook will be closed and to open it you will have to pay, this is all by law.
This message is to inform all our users, that our servers have recently been very congested, so we are asking for your help to solve this problem. We require that our active users forward this message to each of the people in your contact list in order to confirm our active facebook users if you do not send this message to all your facebook contacts then your account will remain inactive with the consequence of Lose all your cont the transmission of this message. Your SmartPhone will be updated within the next 24 hours, will have a new design and a new color for the chat. Dear Facebook users, we are going to do an update for facebook from 23:00 p.m. until 05:00 a.m. on this day. If you do not send this to all your contacts the update will be canceled and you will not have the possibility to chat with your facebook messages
Will go to pay rate unless you are a frequent user. If you have at least 10 contacts
Send this sms and the logo will turn red to indicate that you are a user
Confirmed... We finish it for free Tomorrow they start to collect the messages for facebook at 0.37 cents Forward this message to more than 9 people of your contacts and it will be free of life for you to watch and it will turn green the ball of above do it and you will see.to 9 of you
Pause
-2:44
Unmute
Video Of The Internet added a new video: A WORLD WITHOUT FACEBOOK.
Mark Zuckerberg deletes Facebook???
Video Of The Internet
You're thinking about NSF (National Science Foundation) they do more of the basic non-health-related research programs. NIH does most of the biomedical research.
NSF only has a $6B budget whereas NIH has $26B. Compared to the next runner up China that funds ~$2B worth of research total, half of which is biomedical.
Not at all, I'm thinking of the NIH. I've worked in basic biological research in both the US and the UK and I've been involved in writing funded NIH grants. Over 50% of the large NIH budget goes towards basic research. This is "bio-medical" but that doesn't mean it has a direct clinical application or even that it's health related. For example, I know people funded by the NIH to study how simple plants regulate their genes, to study evolution in yeast or flies, or how neurons in rodent cortex encode information about the world, or how fly brains work, or perhaps basic cancer genetics with no immediate clinical application. A huge amount of the NIH budget goes towards basic research of this sort.
It sure does. The UK government through UKRI funds MCR and NHS which NIHR is part of. Together they are probably the second largest grantor of research funding in the world (behind the US's NIH).
You mean the MRC? Yes, of course, but that's a separate thing from the NHS. The MRC, not the NHS, is the UK equivalent of the NIH. Similarly the Wellcome Trust in the UK serves a similar role to the Howard Hughes in the US.
NHS - National Health Service - even though the UK is a small country, it competes as one of the largest funders of public health research right behind the US's NIH. If you add all the branches integrated with the NHS together, they'd probably end up in second place right behind the world's least socialist country, the US NIH, which spends more than the next 20-something countries combined (including the EU, China, Germany and the UK) on health research.
I see. I think the difference I had in mind is that the NIH funds a lot of basic research that is unlikely to have any direct impact on public health whereas I doubt the NHS does this.
I might be wrong but for some reason (I'm not a brit and have never resided in the UK) I suspect that the refer to the NHS in the UK when it's ysed without sepecefing country
That's what I thought too but the NHS doesn't fund research: it's a socialised health care system not a research funding body.
Europe, Canada and, as I understand it, the US already require open access to the results of government-funded research. In fields such as particle physics where we all tend to work in large, international collaborations this already means that all research is open access since even if you are not from one of these countries some of us our and have to publish in open access journals (and would want to anyway regardless of requirements).
The difference is pretty significant, I think. Since 2008, the NIH has required investigators to place the full text of all journal articles arising from NIH funded research studies into the PubMed open access database. The private Wellcome Trust in the UK has similarly required open access to publications arising from grants it funds. This does not mean the paper must appear in an open access journal. If the paper was published in a closed-access journal an additional fee must be paid to the journal make it open access. Plan-S mandates that these "hybrid open-access journals are not compliant with the key principle". So the rule is likely trying to force the closed journals into becoming open.
Bottled water is more or less a scam anyway, so why not ban it? There are better ways of getting clean water if your water source happens to be dirty. If you want carbonated, then injecting CO2 into water is easy (and fairly cheap if you are willing to DIY).
The interview is here. It doesn't look to me like Trump saw through the act. He looks more like he's fed up of having his time wasted by an idiot and wants to leave.
The thing that struck me the most was the number of 'thieves'. While 'porch pirates' are a real thing, they aren't so common that one guy or even a couple of them could in short order have so many packages lost to them.
I'm sure this depends where you live. I used to live on a busy road and even though the house was a little far back from the road I had three packages stolen over the course of a summer. That was probably a high proportion of the packages that were left on the doorstep, as few were left there in total: the post office in the UK is not supposed to do that at all. I don't find his video so surprising.
If you read the literature (or just Google) you'll see that others have also managed to eliminate the plaques in various ways. However it remains unclear whether removal of the plaques leads to cognitive improvements. In some cases the animal models show improvement and in other cases not. The situation is even more unclear in people. There's a quick overview here. My own hunch is that a combination of early detection and then a treatment of some sort will be the way forward. Probably cognitive impairement will be hard to fix.
You know, not everyone who uses a mac is a whiny millennial.
The worst key on my laptop is the "w", so I just try to rephrase sentences to avoid w's, or I just use an external keyboard (as I am doing now).
The week turnaround for the repair seems like it is intentional just to discourage people from doing it. It should take about 30 minutes, and could be done at the Genius Bar while you wait.
Their repairs generally take about that long. It's annoying, but it's free. Makes more sense to do the repair than wonder about with malfunctioning laptop.
I've heard this argument before, and I just don't get it. "Percent" means per hundred, as the word is derived from the Latin "per centum," literally, "per hundred." It's a natural frequency format, just as much as saying "1 in 10 people." It's saying "10 per 100" people. What's so confusing?!?
It's not confusing, it's just that many people don't do the conversion in their heads. Further, presenting the natural frequency is more useful for small percentages: e.g. 1 in 4,000 is definitely easier to digest than 0.025%
It does look respectable but that graph isn't the full story, is it? In my field we use a lot of Python and MATLAB (also some R). Python can be sped up with Cython (often dramatically). MATLAB makes it easy to integrate C or C++ via MEX files. If you were using one of those languages and really needed to speed up the sorts of things being profiled in the Julia benchmarks then you have a simple way of doing it. Usually you're just optimising an inner loop and can leave the rest of the code unchanged. In practice, however, we have access to large quantity of well-optimised code in both Python and MATLAB so we can just re-use what's already there and don't even need to bother with the above.
That graph tells me that if I had a lot of code I'd need to write in C, I might consider doing it in Julia instead. It doesn't convince me to drop Python or MATLAB in favour of Julia.
I dropped off my 2016 MBP for the keyboard repair on Monday after the space key became too annoying. I asked the tech dude if the replacement keyboard would be identical to what I had in there originally. He didn't know, which I took to mean that likely the answer was "yes, it is identical". He said, however, that later MBP keyboard (I think 2017, but not sure) had a different feel to them with a little more travel in the keys and might stick less. This sounded pretty vague, though, so I take it with a pinch of salt. It's a pity because I like the keyboard when it works. The repair replaces the entire top case and, if I heard correctly, the battery.
Are the billboard top 10 even relevant anymore? It seems like a different metric like "top 100 concert earnings" or something would be more relevant these days.
Or no single metric. Over the last 50 years or so both the number of different genres and the quantity of being being produced have both ballooned so it's not reasonable for a single chart to make sense. What you now really want to know is who thinks what is popular rather than just what is considered popular by the largest number of people.
Au contraire.
Human eyes cannot see more than 30 FPS.
People on/. have such a hard time owning that they are human beings..
It's not that clear cut. At around 30 FPS we indeed start to perceive individual frames depicting motion as continuous but this isn't some hard limit of our visual system. Indeed, the flicker fusion threshold of the optic nerve is at least twice that number. There is no hard FPS number at which things suddenly become smooth and it also depends on a bunch of things such as ambient light levels, what is being displayed, and how fast it's moving. Film is typically projected at 24 FPS, where fairly static scenes (e.g. people hanging around talking) look pretty smooth. Panning shots where the whole image is being translated at even moderate speeds look crap at 24 FPS. I remember being totally disoriented by how much smoother The Hobbit looked at 48 FPS. Huge difference.
30 FPS is certainly not smooth for video games where there is a lot of fast panning. As I remember, there is little benefit in smoothness after about 60 FPS. Perhaps you might need more than that if you want to generate "real" motion blur instead of faking it, but I'm not sure if that's the case.
If my HD TV isn't retina resolution I can't tell. So no interest in 4k, 8k or any fps higher than 30.
There's nothing magic about 30 FPS. 30 FPS looks jerky on fast pans and looks more jerky when you're playing a game compared to passively viewing TV. FPS isn't constant in games either. So if you want to not dip below 30 FPS you have to shoot for a higher average.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree: I wouldn't trust Google and will continue running my current ad blocker. I suspect people who don't run an ad blocker (less techy?) might like this new blocker.
I want to keep using a 3rd party extension with the important feature of NOT BEING INSTALLED BY DEFAULT
Simple.... Whatever Ad-Blocker is installed by default will be the ad-blocker that all the websites that want to show Ads spend their efforts detecting and making workarounds for.... workarounds like annoying prompts requiring you to "Whitelist" before being allowed to see the content referenced by the search link you clicked on.
The point is that this ad blocker will let through all compliant ads. So the scenario you're worrying about likely isn't going to happen. It will be easier for people to make their ads compliant rather than trying to find ways around Google's ad blocker. That's the whole idea: to make ads less annoying so fewer people install blanket ad blockers.
Google makes way too much money for something like this to block video ads on YouTube. I'm sure this is more of an effort to make it more difficult for people to identify which ad blocker they should use because there is no way this thing blocks YouTube ads.
It's an effort to push people away from using current blanket ad blockers by getting rid of the most annoying ads. If people follow through they will start to see more ads from Google as they will get rid of their ad blocker. I'm sure that's the thinking, anyway.
I'LL BE DELETING FACEBOOK! !! Hi I'm Mark Zuckerberg The Director of facebook. Hello everyone, it seems that all the warnings were real, facebook use will cost money If you send this string to 18 different from your list, your icon will be blue and it will be free for you. If you do not believe me tomorrow at 6 pm that facebook will be closed and to open it you will have to pay, this is all by law. This message is to inform all our users, that our servers have recently been very congested, so we are asking for your help to solve this problem. We require that our active users forward this message to each of the people in your contact list in order to confirm our active facebook users if you do not send this message to all your facebook contacts then your account will remain inactive with the consequence of Lose all your cont the transmission of this message. Your SmartPhone will be updated within the next 24 hours, will have a new design and a new color for the chat. Dear Facebook users, we are going to do an update for facebook from 23:00 p.m. until 05:00 a.m. on this day. If you do not send this to all your contacts the update will be canceled and you will not have the possibility to chat with your facebook messages Will go to pay rate unless you are a frequent user. If you have at least 10 contacts Send this sms and the logo will turn red to indicate that you are a user Confirmed ... We finish it for free Tomorrow they start to collect the messages for facebook at 0.37 cents Forward this message to more than 9 people of your contacts and it will be free of life for you to watch and it will turn green the ball of above do it and you will see.to 9 of you
Pause
-2:44
Unmute
Video Of The Internet added a new video: A WORLD WITHOUT FACEBOOK.
Mark Zuckerberg deletes Facebook???
Video Of The Internet
You're thinking about NSF (National Science Foundation) they do more of the basic non-health-related research programs. NIH does most of the biomedical research.
NSF only has a $6B budget whereas NIH has $26B. Compared to the next runner up China that funds ~$2B worth of research total, half of which is biomedical.
Not at all, I'm thinking of the NIH. I've worked in basic biological research in both the US and the UK and I've been involved in writing funded NIH grants. Over 50% of the large NIH budget goes towards basic research. This is "bio-medical" but that doesn't mean it has a direct clinical application or even that it's health related. For example, I know people funded by the NIH to study how simple plants regulate their genes, to study evolution in yeast or flies, or how neurons in rodent cortex encode information about the world, or how fly brains work, or perhaps basic cancer genetics with no immediate clinical application. A huge amount of the NIH budget goes towards basic research of this sort.
It sure does. The UK government through UKRI funds MCR and NHS which NIHR is part of. Together they are probably the second largest grantor of research funding in the world (behind the US's NIH).
You mean the MRC? Yes, of course, but that's a separate thing from the NHS. The MRC, not the NHS, is the UK equivalent of the NIH. Similarly the Wellcome Trust in the UK serves a similar role to the Howard Hughes in the US.
NHS - National Health Service - even though the UK is a small country, it competes as one of the largest funders of public health research right behind the US's NIH. If you add all the branches integrated with the NHS together, they'd probably end up in second place right behind the world's least socialist country, the US NIH, which spends more than the next 20-something countries combined (including the EU, China, Germany and the UK) on health research.
I see. I think the difference I had in mind is that the NIH funds a lot of basic research that is unlikely to have any direct impact on public health whereas I doubt the NHS does this.
I might be wrong but for some reason (I'm not a brit and have never resided in the UK) I suspect that the refer to the NHS in the UK when it's ysed without sepecefing country
That's what I thought too but the NHS doesn't fund research: it's a socialised health care system not a research funding body.
Europe, Canada and, as I understand it, the US already require open access to the results of government-funded research. In fields such as particle physics where we all tend to work in large, international collaborations this already means that all research is open access since even if you are not from one of these countries some of us our and have to publish in open access journals (and would want to anyway regardless of requirements).
The difference is pretty significant, I think. Since 2008, the NIH has required investigators to place the full text of all journal articles arising from NIH funded research studies into the PubMed open access database. The private Wellcome Trust in the UK has similarly required open access to publications arising from grants it funds. This does not mean the paper must appear in an open access journal. If the paper was published in a closed-access journal an additional fee must be paid to the journal make it open access. Plan-S mandates that these "hybrid open-access journals are not compliant with the key principle". So the rule is likely trying to force the closed journals into becoming open.
Not sure since the NHS, NIH and other major granting agencies already have open access requirements for big grants.
The NHS? Which NHS?
Bottled water is more or less a scam anyway, so why not ban it? There are better ways of getting clean water if your water source happens to be dirty. If you want carbonated, then injecting CO2 into water is easy (and fairly cheap if you are willing to DIY).
The interview is here. It doesn't look to me like Trump saw through the act. He looks more like he's fed up of having his time wasted by an idiot and wants to leave.
The thing that struck me the most was the number of 'thieves'. While 'porch pirates' are a real thing, they aren't so common that one guy or even a couple of them could in short order have so many packages lost to them.
I'm sure this depends where you live. I used to live on a busy road and even though the house was a little far back from the road I had three packages stolen over the course of a summer. That was probably a high proportion of the packages that were left on the doorstep, as few were left there in total: the post office in the UK is not supposed to do that at all. I don't find his video so surprising.
You knew it was fake when the first "thief" didn't stomp the glitter-bot into the ground in frustration and anger.
I disagree. Theives, like other people, aren't a stereotype.
If you read the literature (or just Google) you'll see that others have also managed to eliminate the plaques in various ways. However it remains unclear whether removal of the plaques leads to cognitive improvements. In some cases the animal models show improvement and in other cases not. The situation is even more unclear in people. There's a quick overview here. My own hunch is that a combination of early detection and then a treatment of some sort will be the way forward. Probably cognitive impairement will be hard to fix.
You know, not everyone who uses a mac is a whiny millennial.
The worst key on my laptop is the "w", so I just try to rephrase sentences to avoid w's, or I just use an external keyboard (as I am doing now).
The week turnaround for the repair seems like it is intentional just to discourage people from doing it. It should take about 30 minutes, and could be done at the Genius Bar while you wait.
Their repairs generally take about that long. It's annoying, but it's free. Makes more sense to do the repair than wonder about with malfunctioning laptop.
I've heard this argument before, and I just don't get it. "Percent" means per hundred, as the word is derived from the Latin "per centum," literally, "per hundred." It's a natural frequency format, just as much as saying "1 in 10 people." It's saying "10 per 100" people. What's so confusing?!?
It's not confusing, it's just that many people don't do the conversion in their heads. Further, presenting the natural frequency is more useful for small percentages: e.g. 1 in 4,000 is definitely easier to digest than 0.025%
It does look respectable but that graph isn't the full story, is it? In my field we use a lot of Python and MATLAB (also some R). Python can be sped up with Cython (often dramatically). MATLAB makes it easy to integrate C or C++ via MEX files. If you were using one of those languages and really needed to speed up the sorts of things being profiled in the Julia benchmarks then you have a simple way of doing it. Usually you're just optimising an inner loop and can leave the rest of the code unchanged. In practice, however, we have access to large quantity of well-optimised code in both Python and MATLAB so we can just re-use what's already there and don't even need to bother with the above.
That graph tells me that if I had a lot of code I'd need to write in C, I might consider doing it in Julia instead. It doesn't convince me to drop Python or MATLAB in favour of Julia.
The Swiss don't consider semi-skimmed milk (2% fat) to be milk, so in the supermarket it has to be called a "milk drink".
Just go back to those.
You could actually tell when you pressed it too, since it moved 2 mm instead of 0.25 mm.
I don't understand why Apple is making their laptop keyboards have a different sensation from their desktop keyboards. It's incongruous and annoying.
I was in an Apple Store yesterday and a desktop keyboard I tried briefly felt a lot like that on the new MBP.
I dropped off my 2016 MBP for the keyboard repair on Monday after the space key became too annoying. I asked the tech dude if the replacement keyboard would be identical to what I had in there originally. He didn't know, which I took to mean that likely the answer was "yes, it is identical". He said, however, that later MBP keyboard (I think 2017, but not sure) had a different feel to them with a little more travel in the keys and might stick less. This sounded pretty vague, though, so I take it with a pinch of salt. It's a pity because I like the keyboard when it works. The repair replaces the entire top case and, if I heard correctly, the battery.
The original series was crap, too. "Luke, I am your father.". Really?
Got to agree there. I've found them unwatchable since I ceased to be 8 years old.
Are the billboard top 10 even relevant anymore? It seems like a different metric like "top 100 concert earnings" or something would be more relevant these days.
Or no single metric. Over the last 50 years or so both the number of different genres and the quantity of being being produced have both ballooned so it's not reasonable for a single chart to make sense. What you now really want to know is who thinks what is popular rather than just what is considered popular by the largest number of people.
Au contraire. Human eyes cannot see more than 30 FPS. People on /. have such a hard time owning that they are human beings..
It's not that clear cut. At around 30 FPS we indeed start to perceive individual frames depicting motion as continuous but this isn't some hard limit of our visual system. Indeed, the flicker fusion threshold of the optic nerve is at least twice that number. There is no hard FPS number at which things suddenly become smooth and it also depends on a bunch of things such as ambient light levels, what is being displayed, and how fast it's moving. Film is typically projected at 24 FPS, where fairly static scenes (e.g. people hanging around talking) look pretty smooth. Panning shots where the whole image is being translated at even moderate speeds look crap at 24 FPS. I remember being totally disoriented by how much smoother The Hobbit looked at 48 FPS. Huge difference.
30 FPS is certainly not smooth for video games where there is a lot of fast panning. As I remember, there is little benefit in smoothness after about 60 FPS. Perhaps you might need more than that if you want to generate "real" motion blur instead of faking it, but I'm not sure if that's the case.
If my HD TV isn't retina resolution I can't tell. So no interest in 4k, 8k or any fps higher than 30.
There's nothing magic about 30 FPS. 30 FPS looks jerky on fast pans and looks more jerky when you're playing a game compared to passively viewing TV. FPS isn't constant in games either. So if you want to not dip below 30 FPS you have to shoot for a higher average.