I absolutely get and share your distrust of big pharma, but I think this case is different. Notice I'm not saying the display is safe because the manufacturer said so. In fact, I didn't notice anything regarding safety in the article (although I didn't read the whole thing). I'm not taking anything on faith from the manufacturer, I'm saying it's safe based on first principles and basic optics.
Optically this is essentially the same as normal vision or using a telescope or a microscope. The device likely uses a couple of lenses to illuminate the mirror array with the LED, then one more lens that, in concert with your eye's lens, projects the mirror array onto your retina. In other words, that last lens does exactly what the eyepiece of a telescope or microscope does. It's literally the same thing. It's really simple optics with no weird tricks. Nothing is being "beamed" or weird "cool" stuff being done. So since I'm happy to use a microscope and telescope, I'm happy to use this. I have to be, because they're the same thing. Like I say, the only possible acute danger is if the lighting levels are dangerously high. But that's not possible in this case because it doesn't use a laser and light source is illuminating a mirror array, not being focused onto your retina.
Images are drawn onto your retina every waking second of your life.
No, images arrive at our retina through means the human body has been using for thousands of years.
No, the poster you're responding to was correct. As far as your eye is concerned this is optically identical to normal visual conditions. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to see an image with this device.
"Images" do not "arrive" at your retina as you say. Instead, mostly parallel light rays from a surface/object arrives at the lens and, if the conditions are correct, an image is formed onto the retina. All this device is doing is projecting a micro-mirror array onto your retina. So long as the light levels aren't dangerous, there's no problem. In fact, the whole experience is just like using a telescope or a microscope.
Less deeply cool if the mirror control software locks up and you burn a line/spot into your retina.
There won't be enough light to do that. It's a low power LED not a laser. Even if it was powered by a laser, though, the display locking up couldn't lead to eye problems: it's not raster scanning, so the light from the source is spread over the whole mirror array. The device projects the micromirror array onto your retina, so a locked display would simply produce a static image and the position of the image on the retina would change when you move your eye.
It's not made clear in the article, but this looks identical in principle to a conventional digital projector (i.e. powerpoint and home cinema). It's a rather daft article in places; e.g. of course the device has pixels. They're just not RGB triplets. The micro-mirrors must surely be these sorts of things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_micromirror_device which are a standard DLP part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Light_Processing Instead of a white screen, they're projecting onto the retina directly. It's a nice idea but I'm not clear on the benefits and the article doesn't seem to say anything concrete in this regard. There may be downsides: For one thing, the RGB cycling of the LED can lead to rainbow effects when you sacade across the display. The DLPs I'm familiar with have this, at any rate. Perhaps an RGB LED is fast enough to avoid this, though.
No, usually you're applying your test to the average of a single sample, and since possible averages are always normally distributed (for a fair sample size), you can indeed use that to assess the likelihood that your one sample average is usefully close to the population average.
But only if your sample is not biased because you determine the average based upon your sample. If the sample is badly distributed or biased in some way then your estimate of the population mean will be similarly biased and you will not be able to make meaningful inferences regarding the population mean. Problems are worse with small samples.
The same thing happens with parametric stats tests. e.g. with a t-test, the p-value it returns is only meaningful if the sample meets the assumptions of the test. If the sample distribution violates those assumptions substantially (and the test is robust to some degree) then your estimates will be biased and your p-value not trustworthy (i.e. the actual and nominal alpha levels will differ). This is something you can simulate and watch in action: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/stat_sim/robustness/http://onlinestatbook.com/2/tests_of_means/robust_sim.html
I recently acquired a Nexus 4 (yay for the Nexus 5 creating a more vibrant market in second hand Nexi) ans was slightly surprised about the lack of apps already installed compared to my old Samsung phone.
I bought the 4 and one reason for doing so was because of the lack of stuff installed by default:) You get to choose what you want on there. You want a GUI file manager? Then find one you like on the Play store. I use ASTRO mostly. You might have to pay to get it ad-free, but the phone is cheap and it's not a bad thing to support a good developer.
We have computers, sensors, and methods for handling large data sets that were impossible to do anything with back in the day before those first woodburning "minicomputers" of the 1970s. It is ridiculous that we have not tightened up our criteria for acceptance since those days.
But that stuff isn't the limiting factor. The limiting factor is usually getting enough high quality data. In certain fields that's very hard because measurements are hard or expensive to make and the signal to noise is poor. So you do the best you can. This is why criteria aren't tighter now than before: because stuff at the cutting edge is often hard to do.
As you say, there is the Central Limit Theorem (a whole bunch of them actually) that says that the Normal distribution is the asymptotic limit that describes unbelievably many averaging processes.
So it gives you a very valid excuse to assume that the value distribution of some quantity occurring in nature will follow a Normal distribution when you know nothing else about it.
If your sample distribution is non-normal and you're using tests that assume normality then you're fucked regardless of the central limit theorem. Anyway, the central limit theorem tells you that the means of repeated samples will be normally distributed, but this isn't usually what you're applying your test to. You're usually applying your test to a single sample and that may well be very non-normal (which is the point of the central limit theorem).
Yes, but is 1:6300 a lot or a little? I would assume that you would judge this with respect to the expected failure rate which you derive from past experience. Then you can test statistically if the observed rate is higher than expected. So there you have a null hypothesis. It doesn't make sense to ask whether a failure rate in isolation is statistically significant. You need a model to test it against. The odds on their own aren't enough. Furthermore, there's a disconnect between practical and statistical significance, as I mention above.
The graphs in the article you link to are good and I Googled before posting and realised there was something in. It makes sense that lead, a neurotoxin, could be responsible for effects of this sort. It's just that your original post was somewhat sweeping in nature and didn't have a citation so I couldn't resist ribbing you. I should have added a smiley. I'm sorry you appear to have been offended by it, as I've noticed your sig in the past and rather liked it.
Is this just wrong? It lists $55 million US as the figure for the payout. Still half what I assumed but pretty good pay for being an 'owner' that contributes basically nothing (unless you count tourism, and I know that matters).
That figure sounds about right (since the monarch's slice is only about 8 million), but note that this is 15% of the total revenue. The rest goes to the government.
Still half what I assumed but pretty good pay for being an 'owner' that contributes basically nothing (unless you count tourism, and I know that matters).
Then the argument gets uncomfortably close to "property is theft" and that's not a good avenue to go down. The republican argument breaks down here. They argue that the Royals shouldn't get special treatment because privilege is wrong. Also, those few republicans who even know what the civil list is might argue that all income from the Crown lands should go to the state because the monarchy contributes nothing to the Estate. However, if they admit that there's no true difference between the Royal family and any other family (they usually insist on this point and call the queen "Liz", to back it up) then why shouldn't the same rules apply to any inherited property? The arguments they're using to stop the Civil List are basically plain old communism.
I've never really suggested we get rid of them (I don't think we have the power) I just want to use the gov't the same way they do: to improve my lot. The only difference is I want to improve everyone elses lot too while I'm at it. Like I said, socialism.
No, I didn't think you were suggesting that but a lot of people are. I think socialism is good too, but I don't think having a modern monarch obstructs this. Tony Blair and Thatcher--the people the UK *voted* into power--obstructed socialism; the Queen just sits and watches. I think the Queen has a lot of diplomatic value abroad, which a president (or similar) would never have. It's hard to quantify how much that's worth, but $55 million doesn't seem a bad deal to me. Furthermore, if you look at systems of government over time you will see that they're in constant flux. We might not want have use for the monarch now, but with parliament (the cabinet particularly) slowly accruing more and more power there might come a point where the monarch will regain political relevance for the people.
where do those profits come from, and what did the current generation of Royals do to 'earn' 8 million pounds a year? What ever it is I'd like me to do some of that...:)
It's land rental, property rental, profits from farming, etc.
and what did the current generation of Royals do to 'earn' 8 million pounds a year? What ever it is I'd like me to do some of that...:)
They allow the government to administer the land in exchange for the civil list. This is an agreement that is renewed with each monarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estates). There're are also the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster) which are incoming sources to the Royals. In addition, many of the Royals work in some capacity beyond their ceremonial duties. Charles sells organic foods, for instance. The reality of the situation is somewhat removed from the cheap republican "free money" line. Yes, they're rich and privileged but lots of other people are too and getting rid of them won't change social inequality.
Heck, last I heard the British still hand their Royalty something on the order of $100 million a year in free money.
Then you heard wrong: this is a common misconception that republicans in the UK like to trot out at regular intervals. The UK government pays certain members of the Royal Family from the civil list. The monarch, for instance, gets around 8 million GBP annually. However, this isn't "free money", it's the Crown's money that is being handled by the government. In the 18th century, the monarchy was in financial trouble and George III surrendered the income from the Crown estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate) in return for an annual grant (the civil list). The annual profits from the Estate are of the order of 250 million GBP. The money handed out to the Royal Family is a fraction of that. Profits not going to the Royals are retained by the government. So it would be more true to say that the Royal family is giving the British "free money", particularly when you take into consideration secondary benefits of their existence such as tourism income and diplomatic value (they're generally viewed positively abroad).
That might be significant if it was statistically significant. One incident does not make it significant.
Now, if there were 10 in 63000, that would be significant, but one in 6300 is not.
In addition, this accident was not caused by a car malfunction, it was caused by an external event.
This doesn't really make sense. Firstly, what do you mean "statistical significant." What's the null hypothesis, etc? Secondly statistical significance is largely bollocks in these situations. If this accident uncovered a worrisome failure mode (I don't know if it did, but let's consider the possibility) that nobody had thought of then it is of practical significance since something needs to be done about that. You don't wait for the failures to repeat many times before doing something about it. Airline safety works this way: accidents are fairly rare so you glean what you can from each one and fix design bugs that were missed previously. You don't wait to see if the fuck up will happen again, once you've figured out what it is. It's true that you also have to way up the liklihood of the failure mode occuring, but this isn't something you can decide with an arbitrary stats test. A qualified individual always needs to assess the severity of the failure mode, the cost of repairs, etc.
Not the point,
I'm getting at the 'cameras are everywhere in Britain' blanket statement I keep seeing here, when, manifestly, they aren't.
You're quibbling with definitions. They may not be everywhere but there are a fuck of a lot of them and they're breeding. The number of cameras per person is very high in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8159141.stm
That said, it's a clear sign that Canonical doesn't value the privacy of its users. Their default is moving to "privacy disrespecting" and that means users will need to actively keep up on the latest "how to fix the privacy flaws in Ubuntu".
No company that expects to make money from advertising is going to do so by making the advertising opt-in. That is why it must be opt-out if Canonical are going to see any revenue. If the opt-out becomes impossible, then I'm sure other Linux distros will step up and cater for users who don't wish to use Ubuntu. At the moment, opt-out can be as simple as not using Unity, which is a shitty desktop environment anyway.
But this isn't a site promoting an alternative distro or selling a product. It's site about Ubuntu. So how does its presence weaken the Ubuntu trademark? It's like saying that this post weakens the trademark because it uses the term "Ubuntu". I bet Canonical won't bother going after http://ubuntu-artists.deviantart.com/ or http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/
..then there is something more serious broken in your decision making that command can fix.
And what exactly is broken broken in Ubuntu people's decision making? Perhaps it's just that Ubuntu users have different opinions and priorities to you and that makes their choice of OS wrong? I really don't see the big deal here. Everything is open source, you know what Ubuntu is doing. Simply not using Unity will avoid the phoning home. Get over it.
Then notice the wikipedia link too: it mentions saltwater fish with UV vision. I just couldn't at short-notice find a link to a primary paper on saltwater fish. UV cones are a common feature in fish, reptiles, and birds. It's us mammals that have restricted colour vision.
In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.
I'm so tired of hearing Americans saying things like this. The terms "free" and "freedom" do not mean "do whatever the fuck I want and hang everyone else", which is what Fox News in particular seem to think they mean. It's quite obvious that the constitution uses the term "freedom" with respect to things such as freedom to form a democratically elected government, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the free right to peaceably assemble, etc. i.e. freedom to perform important shit that will help avoid oppression and tyranny. These are noble and beautiful things that you, as a nation, should be proud of. Why do Americans insist on debasing their constitution by placing freedom to eat trans-fats/large sodas/etc, up there with with all the other stuff that actually matters?
The biggest thing we can do to help turtles is to install UV lights on commercial fishing nets to significantly reduce the bycatch rate, turtles can see into the UV spectrum but fish cannot so there is no impact on the fishermen other than a fairly minimal cost for waterproof led housings.
Fish do possess UV cones (as do reptiles and birds) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_in_fishes#Ultraviolet. For example, cyprinids, a large family of freshwater fish, have a short-wave sensitivity as short as 277 nm with a peak sensitivity for the short-wave cones of 358 nm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782369). Human short-wave cones have a peak at 420 nm and turtle UV cones are at 372 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11925010).
Slashdot Mirror
I absolutely get and share your distrust of big pharma, but I think this case is different. Notice I'm not saying the display is safe because the manufacturer said so. In fact, I didn't notice anything regarding safety in the article (although I didn't read the whole thing). I'm not taking anything on faith from the manufacturer, I'm saying it's safe based on first principles and basic optics.
Optically this is essentially the same as normal vision or using a telescope or a microscope. The device likely uses a couple of lenses to illuminate the mirror array with the LED, then one more lens that, in concert with your eye's lens, projects the mirror array onto your retina. In other words, that last lens does exactly what the eyepiece of a telescope or microscope does. It's literally the same thing. It's really simple optics with no weird tricks. Nothing is being "beamed" or weird "cool" stuff being done. So since I'm happy to use a microscope and telescope, I'm happy to use this. I have to be, because they're the same thing. Like I say, the only possible acute danger is if the lighting levels are dangerously high. But that's not possible in this case because it doesn't use a laser and light source is illuminating a mirror array, not being focused onto your retina.
No, images arrive at our retina through means the human body has been using for thousands of years.
No, the poster you're responding to was correct. As far as your eye is concerned this is optically identical to normal visual conditions. If it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to see an image with this device.
"Images" do not "arrive" at your retina as you say. Instead, mostly parallel light rays from a surface/object arrives at the lens and, if the conditions are correct, an image is formed onto the retina. All this device is doing is projecting a micro-mirror array onto your retina. So long as the light levels aren't dangerous, there's no problem. In fact, the whole experience is just like using a telescope or a microscope.
Less deeply cool if the mirror control software locks up and you burn a line/spot into your retina.
There won't be enough light to do that. It's a low power LED not a laser. Even if it was powered by a laser, though, the display locking up couldn't lead to eye problems: it's not raster scanning, so the light from the source is spread over the whole mirror array. The device projects the micromirror array onto your retina, so a locked display would simply produce a static image and the position of the image on the retina would change when you move your eye.
It's not made clear in the article, but this looks identical in principle to a conventional digital projector (i.e. powerpoint and home cinema). It's a rather daft article in places; e.g. of course the device has pixels. They're just not RGB triplets. The micro-mirrors must surely be these sorts of things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_micromirror_device which are a standard DLP part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Light_Processing Instead of a white screen, they're projecting onto the retina directly. It's a nice idea but I'm not clear on the benefits and the article doesn't seem to say anything concrete in this regard. There may be downsides: For one thing, the RGB cycling of the LED can lead to rainbow effects when you sacade across the display. The DLPs I'm familiar with have this, at any rate. Perhaps an RGB LED is fast enough to avoid this, though.
No, usually you're applying your test to the average of a single sample, and since possible averages are always normally distributed (for a fair sample size), you can indeed use that to assess the likelihood that your one sample average is usefully close to the population average.
But only if your sample is not biased because you determine the average based upon your sample. If the sample is badly distributed or biased in some way then your estimate of the population mean will be similarly biased and you will not be able to make meaningful inferences regarding the population mean. Problems are worse with small samples.
The same thing happens with parametric stats tests. e.g. with a t-test, the p-value it returns is only meaningful if the sample meets the assumptions of the test. If the sample distribution violates those assumptions substantially (and the test is robust to some degree) then your estimates will be biased and your p-value not trustworthy (i.e. the actual and nominal alpha levels will differ). This is something you can simulate and watch in action: http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~lane/stat_sim/robustness/ http://onlinestatbook.com/2/tests_of_means/robust_sim.html
Anyway, I tried the CM one on my Nexus 4 and it works great.
And that's what's great about Android: you can do what works best for you.
I recently acquired a Nexus 4 (yay for the Nexus 5 creating a more vibrant market in second hand Nexi) ans was slightly surprised about the lack of apps already installed compared to my old Samsung phone.
I bought the 4 and one reason for doing so was because of the lack of stuff installed by default :) You get to choose what you want on there. You want a GUI file manager? Then find one you like on the Play store. I use ASTRO mostly. You might have to pay to get it ad-free, but the phone is cheap and it's not a bad thing to support a good developer.
We have computers, sensors, and methods for handling large data sets that were impossible to do anything with back in the day before those first woodburning "minicomputers" of the 1970s. It is ridiculous that we have not tightened up our criteria for acceptance since those days.
But that stuff isn't the limiting factor. The limiting factor is usually getting enough high quality data. In certain fields that's very hard because measurements are hard or expensive to make and the signal to noise is poor. So you do the best you can. This is why criteria aren't tighter now than before: because stuff at the cutting edge is often hard to do.
As you say, there is the Central Limit Theorem (a whole bunch of them actually) that says that the Normal distribution is the asymptotic limit that describes unbelievably many averaging processes.
So it gives you a very valid excuse to assume that the value distribution of some quantity occurring in nature will follow a Normal distribution when you know nothing else about it.
If your sample distribution is non-normal and you're using tests that assume normality then you're fucked regardless of the central limit theorem. Anyway, the central limit theorem tells you that the means of repeated samples will be normally distributed, but this isn't usually what you're applying your test to. You're usually applying your test to a single sample and that may well be very non-normal (which is the point of the central limit theorem).
Yes, but is 1:6300 a lot or a little? I would assume that you would judge this with respect to the expected failure rate which you derive from past experience. Then you can test statistically if the observed rate is higher than expected. So there you have a null hypothesis. It doesn't make sense to ask whether a failure rate in isolation is statistically significant. You need a model to test it against. The odds on their own aren't enough. Furthermore, there's a disconnect between practical and statistical significance, as I mention above.
Just post that makes you a tosser.
The graphs in the article you link to are good and I Googled before posting and realised there was something in. It makes sense that lead, a neurotoxin, could be responsible for effects of this sort. It's just that your original post was somewhat sweeping in nature and didn't have a citation so I couldn't resist ribbing you. I should have added a smiley. I'm sorry you appear to have been offended by it, as I've noticed your sig in the past and rather liked it.
But he's become a hippy, I heard he's now into guru meditation.
One reason for the almost world-wide reduction in crime is the reduction of lead in the environment, thanks to unleaded fuel.
http://www.venganza.org/images/PiratesVsTemp.png
Is this just wrong? It lists $55 million US as the figure for the payout. Still half what I assumed but pretty good pay for being an 'owner' that contributes basically nothing (unless you count tourism, and I know that matters).
That figure sounds about right (since the monarch's slice is only about 8 million), but note that this is 15% of the total revenue. The rest goes to the government.
Still half what I assumed but pretty good pay for being an 'owner' that contributes basically nothing (unless you count tourism, and I know that matters).
Then the argument gets uncomfortably close to "property is theft" and that's not a good avenue to go down. The republican argument breaks down here. They argue that the Royals shouldn't get special treatment because privilege is wrong. Also, those few republicans who even know what the civil list is might argue that all income from the Crown lands should go to the state because the monarchy contributes nothing to the Estate. However, if they admit that there's no true difference between the Royal family and any other family (they usually insist on this point and call the queen "Liz", to back it up) then why shouldn't the same rules apply to any inherited property? The arguments they're using to stop the Civil List are basically plain old communism.
I've never really suggested we get rid of them (I don't think we have the power) I just want to use the gov't the same way they do: to improve my lot. The only difference is I want to improve everyone elses lot too while I'm at it. Like I said, socialism.
No, I didn't think you were suggesting that but a lot of people are. I think socialism is good too, but I don't think having a modern monarch obstructs this. Tony Blair and Thatcher--the people the UK *voted* into power--obstructed socialism; the Queen just sits and watches. I think the Queen has a lot of diplomatic value abroad, which a president (or similar) would never have. It's hard to quantify how much that's worth, but $55 million doesn't seem a bad deal to me. Furthermore, if you look at systems of government over time you will see that they're in constant flux. We might not want have use for the monarch now, but with parliament (the cabinet particularly) slowly accruing more and more power there might come a point where the monarch will regain political relevance for the people.
where do those profits come from, and what did the current generation of Royals do to 'earn' 8 million pounds a year? What ever it is I'd like me to do some of that... :)
It's land rental, property rental, profits from farming, etc.
and what did the current generation of Royals do to 'earn' 8 million pounds a year? What ever it is I'd like me to do some of that... :)
They allow the government to administer the land in exchange for the civil list. This is an agreement that is renewed with each monarch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estates). There're are also the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster) which are incoming sources to the Royals. In addition, many of the Royals work in some capacity beyond their ceremonial duties. Charles sells organic foods, for instance. The reality of the situation is somewhat removed from the cheap republican "free money" line. Yes, they're rich and privileged but lots of other people are too and getting rid of them won't change social inequality.
Heck, last I heard the British still hand their Royalty something on the order of $100 million a year in free money.
Then you heard wrong: this is a common misconception that republicans in the UK like to trot out at regular intervals. The UK government pays certain members of the Royal Family from the civil list. The monarch, for instance, gets around 8 million GBP annually. However, this isn't "free money", it's the Crown's money that is being handled by the government. In the 18th century, the monarchy was in financial trouble and George III surrendered the income from the Crown estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate) in return for an annual grant (the civil list). The annual profits from the Estate are of the order of 250 million GBP. The money handed out to the Royal Family is a fraction of that. Profits not going to the Royals are retained by the government. So it would be more true to say that the Royal family is giving the British "free money", particularly when you take into consideration secondary benefits of their existence such as tourism income and diplomatic value (they're generally viewed positively abroad).
That being said, 1 in 6300 is a lot
That might be significant if it was statistically significant. One incident does not make it significant. Now, if there were 10 in 63000, that would be significant, but one in 6300 is not. In addition, this accident was not caused by a car malfunction, it was caused by an external event.
This doesn't really make sense. Firstly, what do you mean "statistical significant." What's the null hypothesis, etc? Secondly statistical significance is largely bollocks in these situations. If this accident uncovered a worrisome failure mode (I don't know if it did, but let's consider the possibility) that nobody had thought of then it is of practical significance since something needs to be done about that. You don't wait for the failures to repeat many times before doing something about it. Airline safety works this way: accidents are fairly rare so you glean what you can from each one and fix design bugs that were missed previously. You don't wait to see if the fuck up will happen again, once you've figured out what it is. It's true that you also have to way up the liklihood of the failure mode occuring, but this isn't something you can decide with an arbitrary stats test. A qualified individual always needs to assess the severity of the failure mode, the cost of repairs, etc.
Not the point, I'm getting at the 'cameras are everywhere in Britain' blanket statement I keep seeing here, when, manifestly, they aren't.
You're quibbling with definitions. They may not be everywhere but there are a fuck of a lot of them and they're breeding. The number of cameras per person is very high in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/8159141.stm
That said, it's a clear sign that Canonical doesn't value the privacy of its users. Their default is moving to "privacy disrespecting" and that means users will need to actively keep up on the latest "how to fix the privacy flaws in Ubuntu".
No company that expects to make money from advertising is going to do so by making the advertising opt-in. That is why it must be opt-out if Canonical are going to see any revenue. If the opt-out becomes impossible, then I'm sure other Linux distros will step up and cater for users who don't wish to use Ubuntu. At the moment, opt-out can be as simple as not using Unity, which is a shitty desktop environment anyway.
But this isn't a site promoting an alternative distro or selling a product. It's site about Ubuntu. So how does its presence weaken the Ubuntu trademark? It's like saying that this post weakens the trademark because it uses the term "Ubuntu". I bet Canonical won't bother going after http://ubuntu-artists.deviantart.com/ or http://podcast.ubuntu-uk.org/
..then there is something more serious broken in your decision making that command can fix.
And what exactly is broken broken in Ubuntu people's decision making? Perhaps it's just that Ubuntu users have different opinions and priorities to you and that makes their choice of OS wrong? I really don't see the big deal here. Everything is open source, you know what Ubuntu is doing. Simply not using Unity will avoid the phoning home. Get over it.
It's not a "Dance Your PhD", but I love this Lady Gaga parody: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4L4M8m4d0 Better than the original, I reckon.
Then notice the wikipedia link too: it mentions saltwater fish with UV vision. I just couldn't at short-notice find a link to a primary paper on saltwater fish. UV cones are a common feature in fish, reptiles, and birds. It's us mammals that have restricted colour vision.
In a supposedly free country? No, of course we shouldn't ban it.
I'm so tired of hearing Americans saying things like this. The terms "free" and "freedom" do not mean "do whatever the fuck I want and hang everyone else", which is what Fox News in particular seem to think they mean. It's quite obvious that the constitution uses the term "freedom" with respect to things such as freedom to form a democratically elected government, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, the free right to peaceably assemble, etc. i.e. freedom to perform important shit that will help avoid oppression and tyranny. These are noble and beautiful things that you, as a nation, should be proud of. Why do Americans insist on debasing their constitution by placing freedom to eat trans-fats/large sodas/etc, up there with with all the other stuff that actually matters?
The biggest thing we can do to help turtles is to install UV lights on commercial fishing nets to significantly reduce the bycatch rate, turtles can see into the UV spectrum but fish cannot so there is no impact on the fishermen other than a fairly minimal cost for waterproof led housings.
Fish do possess UV cones (as do reptiles and birds) -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_in_fishes#Ultraviolet. For example, cyprinids, a large family of freshwater fish, have a short-wave sensitivity as short as 277 nm with a peak sensitivity for the short-wave cones of 358 nm (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8782369). Human short-wave cones have a peak at 420 nm and turtle UV cones are at 372 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11925010).