I've seen so many studies in the last 2 years debunking the co2 theory that there's no way the premise could be true. Yet we still see this special interest group 'science' coming out and widely promoted by the mass media. If the facts don't fit the theory, it's not the facts which are wrong.
The whole co2 climate change field is just being used to promote fear as a distraction from the truth.
Sorry, got to call bullshit on that one. (Quality argument adapted from here; I'd have simply modded down but I didn't have points).
I'm really glad this has come about, not because the DSM itself is a useless book but because the attitudes towards it lead to some gross errors of judgement.
The DSM can be useful: if one clinician wants to communicate to another at a fairly high level the symptoms a patient is experiencing, then a DSM-defined disorder can be a reasonably efficient way of doing this. Also, the DSM does group together some symptoms which tend to occur as clusters under labels which can provide cues for looking for related symptoms which might otherwise be missed.
However... People make the mistake of thinking that because something is listed in the DSM it is somehow a 'real disease'. The Epstein–Barr virus is a real disease: it is caused by a specific virus. Type I Diabetes is a real disease: it is caused by the loss of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas (although there is the more distal cause of the cell loss). Depression is not a real disease, in this sense - at least, not at the moment. It is a cluster of symptoms which when the occur together are referred to as Depression. Nothing more. (That isn't to say a 'disease' will not actually be identified at some point, but I suspect that will be for a specific subtype of depression, not depression as it is currently classified).
On the radio yesterday, I heard an 'aspie' - who under DSM 5 will no longer be an 'aspie' since Aspergers will no longer exist in its current form - talking about how it was great when he was diagnosed because they finally knew what was wrong with him. The problem is this: they didn't and still don't know what's wrong - just that his symptoms fit a commonly observed pattern, and that there are particular interventions to try to address the associated deficits. Having a listing in the DSM doesn't make things any more or less 'real', but some/many people imagine that it does. Just because there isn't a diagnostic criteria for a very shy child (although I imagine one could be found if looking hard enough), that doesn't mean that there aren't programmes to help the child be more comfortable with social interaction. This becomes most manifestly a problem when conducting genetic, neurobiological, or even treatment research into the causes for 'a disorder'. Because these disorders are symptom clusters, and often have substantial variation in presentation, they are at times artificially grouped for research. This can hinder research into specific subgroups who show more common characteristics. Similarly, if there is a presentation which includes two DSM disorders (e.g. depression and anxiety, which is a very common comorbidity) then these people will tend to be systematically excluded from research because they are defined as 'having comorbidity'. Are both 'disorders' caused by the same underlying cause? Who knows, but being separate DSM disorders means that this group tends to be very underrepresented in research.
On top of this, there is the involvement of vested interests in the development of disorders, there is the interpretation of things as 'wrong' because they are a DSM disorder, etc.
In summary, the DSM can be useful for clinicians to communicate a summary to each other, when accompanied by further detail. It can provide gross groupings for treatment research, but lacks finesse of distinction which could help tailored treatments to individual characteristics rather than the broader presentation. People suddenly seem to think something is 'real' because it appears in the DSM, and so push to have ever more 'disorders' included. This all makes DSM as much of a hindrance as a help to good research and mental health practices.
Wait, just so I'm clear: you're saying that law enforcement has the ability to do one of the following: 1. Generate an SSL certificate trusted by the browser (i.e. using a CA which is trusted by the browser) and 'MITM' the connection 2. Use an SSL certificate which doesn't derive trust from a trusted CA, but prevent the browser from notifying the user that the certificate is invalid 3. Has the actual certificate of the server the traffic to which they want to interept
I guess they could also just be intercepting using untrusted certificates and hoping people ignore it - and most probably would.
There are two different types of 'fakes' (and maybe more) One is where a fake site is set up for a real journal, and suckers authors into submitting to it (and more importantly, paying for submission). It is basically phishing. The other is what appears to the public (and potentially other academics) to be an academic journal that has no standards for submission other than the fee. It is good for submitting claptrap to later refer to.
True, but it does provide an avenue to check for external keys. I don't have an iThing so I can't check, but if you can activate a new device and receive your iMessage messages while the previous device on which those messages were held is switched off, then at best the messages are protected by a password. It may be the passphrase for an encryption key, but it is still just a password. If you can get Apple to reset the password, and then activate a new device and receive your iMessage with your old device being off the whole time, then Apple must be able to read the messages (because the password can't be the key, or be a passphrase for the key, as the key is accessible with the password being changed).
There are also other permutations: if the old device must be on to configure iMessage on a new device, then there may be a key transferred from device to device. Without knowing the specifics of iMessage, I can't predict many other tests.
I'm mainly using a 13 inch Macbook and the laptop screen, so the location at the top of the screen is good for (because it is typically close, and is always predictable). Also, I like that I can always move my eyes (and pointer) right to it (because I hit the top of the screen). I also use a graphics tablet a lot so always knowing where the menu location will be on the tablet is handy for me.
On multiple monitors, though, it is rather annoying. And as you say, when you're using a large screen it will be more hindrance than help.
There are a lot of things I loathe about Finder: 1. If I paste, it goes into the folder I am currently 'in', not the folder I currently have selected. I have to double-click the folder to go into it before pasting, which means I lose my context. 2. Cut and paste are annoying to use (you have to copy, then hold control+option+V, and that only recently became available) 3. There is no easy way to copy the full path of the current folder to the clipboard 4. Typing characters to find what you're looking for in the current folder list never seems to work as expected 5. It remembers the mess of folder I had last time, and there is no easy way to close all those folders (some people probably like this behaviour, mind you) 6. Pasting a folder into a location with another folder of the same name deletes the existing folder and entirely replaces it, eliminating all its contents. Strictly speaking, this is more an issue of what you're used to, and they did finally add the 'merge' option.
There are more, but I only remember them as I hit them time and time again.
I have used both Linux and Windows pretty extensively for my desktop system, and for servers (not always my choice). I love using Linux servers (specifically CentOS) - they perform well for the tasks I use them for, and they are rock solid.
I miss Linux on my Macbook Air probably about as often as I miss having Windows on my Macbook Air. There are plenty of things I don't like about Apple: expensive hardware often lagging on the performance-features front (e.g. USB3 took a while), their 'our way or get lost' approach, how truly awful Finder is (and it is truly awful), and all of the bollocks about 'It just works' (it mostly works). However, I can use the apps I need on it (e.g. Photoshop: and no, Gimp is not a replacement; MS Office: and no, OpenOffice is not a replacement). The touchpad functionality is brilliant (multi-touch, swiping, etc). Menu bars always at the top of the screen is genius, as it turns out. I don't need to deal with installing GTK+, QT, etc etc - although this is mainly just an artifact of the packaging system.
So in essence, I don't feel like a traitor. I feel like I'm using different OSs for different things based on their match to my needs. Mind you, I revisit Linux fairly regularly to check on how it is going as a desktop OS (and was one of the weird folk who didn't mind Gnome 3), and it is certainly getting better, but I always wind up back on OSX (or Windows, prior to that).
If I stop being able to install apps without the app store, or they all need to be digitally signed and approved by Apple, then you'll see me switching to something else faster than you can blink, but that's a ways off yet.
I think this is spot on. When I do a broad search on what I am trying to do, I almost invariably end up with StackOverflow. It's great: there are sometimes some good code examples, often people asking exactly the question in my mind, and a bit of discussion on the topic. Then, to get more context about the code involved, the classes, etc I will refer to the official reference material.
I think this balance reflects that there is a small group of people who read the official documentation and work out how to do things, and then a much larger group of people who ask how to do those things on StackOverflow. The first group answers the questions of the second on StackOverflow so it essentially becomes a giant FAQ on the language or technology being discussed. When someone in the broader community wants to do something, they can search using keywords relevant to what they are attempting to do, and this will (unsurprisingly) match a question on StackOverflow; and indeed, in this case what they want is the answer to the question, not the reference documentation which may be related. (In practice, it is probably also that the first group writes books on the topic, a second group reads the books, and the question-askers are actually the third tier from the documentation).
People were skilled in being fucking idiots long before smart phones. However, offloading some memory tasks isn't necessarily a bad thing if the alternative is spending active time trying to memorise these things (I'm mainly thinking of rote-memorising facts). That time may be better spent actually actively thinking.
Then again, actually having memorised a range of information may be instrumental for novel ideas which draw on the variety.
There are two ways of dealing with this: getting this person off [i]your[/i] network, and getting this person off [i]everyone's[/i] network. Personally, I think if you can get everyone to squeeze him off their networks then that will probably be the nicest kind of vengeance.
Consider writing up a simple letter (starting with: Just a note from a neighbor), detail that someone in the area has been breaking into wireless networks and may be pirating stuff/doing illegal things which could lead to difficulties for the actual owner of the OP. Then, provide a basic summary of what to do to avoid it (e.g. disable WPS, etc etc) and maybe even provide URLs for the major router manufacturers. With [i]some[/i] luck, [i]some[/i] people will pay attention and lock down their network.
If you know who it is doing it (using handy phone apps to detect signal strength, or a directional antenna) then you could do a 'special' letterbox drop for that one person with a 'how to buy an internet connection'.
Mind you, if this person is using an 'evil twin' they may be doing more than just stealing Wifi. If their MAC address is stable (i.e. they are not modifying it) you may want to capture some sample traffic with that included. If things do go awry you can use that to provide evidence it was that person's computer, possibly.
A couple of points: 1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result. 2. I don't think it is acceptable for the manufacturer of the test to be able to set whatever price it chooses, even if that involves mandated licensing. That isn't to say that the business should not be able to make a respectable profit - after all, there was some risk involved on their part. However, because of the implications of the government-granted monopoly I think it is fair to have some constraints on that monopoly even within the 20 years. 3. The real issue is actually the patenting of the gene itself. Patenting of the test is fine: it is an invention, and so a monopoly can be granted on that. However, the same can't be said of the genes.
If the outcome of treatment is consistently better for the automated system than for a human doctor, then the insurance premiums for the automated system will be lower than for a human doctor. Not only that, insurers will not have to worry about whole classes of problems: e.g. inappropriate interactions with clients.
If you add a human cross-checking the output of the automated system to avoid gross errors, then that would potentially help to identify bugs. Frankly, even if there are bugs which cause problems, if the result is still better treatment then that is still a win (for patients).
If the Basis band guys integrated an oximeter that would fulfil all the monitoring criteria. Mind you, they need to also provide raw data export, and clear documentation on sensitivity, error correction, and filtering used.
It seems like an almost brilliant device, ruined by failure rates, needing to be registered with an online system to get any data, a complete inability to get raw data, and no API. I'd be ordering one if I could be sure it would come in the next 6 months and I'd be able to read the data from it.
I think the parent was meaning that by providing security updates as subcomponents of the OS rather than full OS updates, then the drivers wouldn't need to change (unless the secure issue was in the driver itself).
However, your point is basically right. If you look over at XDA-developers, a common pattern is that one manufacturer stops providing updates for a device (e.g. Acer A500, for which the last official update was 4.0.x) so Android mod developers have to dig around for other devices using the same chipsets but that received later updates in order to get compatible drivers (for the A500, I believe that is one of the Asus Transformer models). Manufacturers have an impetus not to provide major OS updates, because that reduces the differentiators on which they can sell the new model. This does need to be balanced against the reputation cost of having shabby update support (e.g. Motorola received a lot of hate about the Motorola Defy, which was released with a two-version-ago OS, was updated to a one-version-ago OS, and has a locked bootloader so replacing the OS is a pain. This case was particularly bad, because the Motorola Defy+ was released shortly thereafter with the current OS version, and the only difference was the camera and clock speed). Samsung seems to balance this pretty well, HTC so-so, Motorola very poorly.
If drivers didn't need to be modified between Android versions that would be a big advantage for Android mod developers, and probably for the handset manufacturers as well. Those manufacturers are not even releasing minor updates within a major OS version, though (which don't involve drivers changes, to my knowledge) so the basic issue isn't drivers - it is handset manufacturer retiscence (be it for cost or laziness reasons).
A proportion of voting-age people, sampled at the beginning of each year, could be a good way to go. The downside being that as population increases, the ability to effectively organise doesn't necessarily scale identically.
They should ignore the petitions about "building Death Stars" and respond to the realistic ones, such as legalizing marijuana. This is not difficult.
I can't tell if you're being funny or not, but actually you've hit the nail on the head: it isn't always easy to differentiate serious and 'humorous' petitions. Legalizing marijuana is a real issue for many people, and I think the current criminalization in so many countries is a terrible idea, but such a petition could equally be created as a joke.
Also, what is crazy (not humorous, but properly nuts) to one person is not crazy to another. e.g. a petition to deport someone for their views on gun control. Crazy? Yes, I think so, but those putting it up didn't think so. Needs a response? Equally, yes.
I live in Australia too and although gun violence does happen here, it is the exception rather than the rule. I'd say current system of gun laws is working reasonably well. Being an island does make importing guns illegally more difficult, which helps.
Mass killing with firearms are indeed a small subset of murders. The focus could be redirected to the larger number of murders with firearms which are not mass killings.
'But you can kill with x' where X is knives, baseball bats, metal bars, toothpicks, whatever. - X have uses other than killing, although the argument could possibly be made for some specific types of X
'But outlaws will have guns anyway' - Initially, yes; but as soon as someone shoots at someone, they are an outlaw so this is kind of definitionally correct. Also, by having easily availability of guns, the 'outlaws have guns' situation is perpetuated.
'Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun' - Maybe you're right. Lucky that police have guns.
'Why not focus on curing cancer instead of gun control?' - I suspect cancer researchers are not being dragged off to work on gun control; I am pretty sure that cancer research and gun control can occur simultaneously.
Then there is the fact that there is 0 correlation between success in life and IQ
Tell that to an intellectual disabled permos (defined as IQ 75 in Australia). It is a long way from a perfect correlation, but to claim there is 0 correlation is rubbish unless you are choosing some fairly bizzare measures of 'success'.
1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).
To dig into the ideas of 'voluntary' and 'exploitation': Would it be exploitation for me to find unemployed women who are falling behind on their rent and have no savings, and then offer $5k for sex? Or to offer domestic abuse victims enough money for a refuge if they stand almost naked on street corners with the words 'Loser' painted across their body? Or to give a junkie enough cash for heroin if they will paint their body with their own shit?
If the answer is no because the actions are voluntary, then I think you and I have different conceptions of 'voluntary'. If you think that these actions are involuntary, in contrast to the homeless/unemployed person, then I think you need to consider how free a homeless and unemployed person are to reject what may be their only source of income.
This study is really a revelation for me, the findings are highly non-obvious. I had thought that people would wait indefinitely for the video to appear, based on the "sunken costs" theory, i.e. I've already invested mm minutes and ss seconds waiting for this to appear and it might appear at any moment.
This actually captures well why people should hesitate before deriding studies which have seemingly obvious outcomes. This study may be on the margins of that - although it is the quantification that is actually interesting about it - but sometimes studies find counterintuitive results. Even better, if a study produces a what may be a counterintuitive result then hindsight bias means people will tend to revise memories so they believe that was the expected outcome all along.
When was the last time you upgraded a CPU and didn't get a new motherboard? Never?
About a 2 months ago, but it was an AMD, not an Intel.I swapped the Athlon X2 in the Asus M2N-E motherboard (purchased circa 2006) over to an Athlon II X4. Because of AMDs socket compatibility, I was able to put the Socket AM3 CPU into the Socket AM2. I then added a new mid-range video card (Gigabyte Nvidia GeForce GTX 560), and the machine is now snappy and good for games again.Total cost: ~$300 (the CPU was a bit overpriced because it is already a little dated; still a damn side cheaper than a new motherboard and processor. Plus I could keep using my existing RAM. As has been noted, it seems that Intel is much faster at rolling over their CPU socket designs.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen so many studies in the last 2 years debunking the co2 theory that there's no way the premise could be true. Yet we still see this special interest group 'science' coming out and widely promoted by the mass media. If the facts don't fit the theory, it's not the facts which are wrong.
The whole co2 climate change field is just being used to promote fear as a distraction from the truth.
Sorry, got to call bullshit on that one.
(Quality argument adapted from here; I'd have simply modded down but I didn't have points).
I'm really glad this has come about, not because the DSM itself is a useless book but because the attitudes towards it lead to some gross errors of judgement.
The DSM can be useful: if one clinician wants to communicate to another at a fairly high level the symptoms a patient is experiencing, then a DSM-defined disorder can be a reasonably efficient way of doing this. Also, the DSM does group together some symptoms which tend to occur as clusters under labels which can provide cues for looking for related symptoms which might otherwise be missed.
However...
People make the mistake of thinking that because something is listed in the DSM it is somehow a 'real disease'. The Epstein–Barr virus is a real disease: it is caused by a specific virus. Type I Diabetes is a real disease: it is caused by the loss of insulin-producing cells in the pancreas (although there is the more distal cause of the cell loss). Depression is not a real disease, in this sense - at least, not at the moment. It is a cluster of symptoms which when the occur together are referred to as Depression. Nothing more. (That isn't to say a 'disease' will not actually be identified at some point, but I suspect that will be for a specific subtype of depression, not depression as it is currently classified).
On the radio yesterday, I heard an 'aspie' - who under DSM 5 will no longer be an 'aspie' since Aspergers will no longer exist in its current form - talking about how it was great when he was diagnosed because they finally knew what was wrong with him. The problem is this: they didn't and still don't know what's wrong - just that his symptoms fit a commonly observed pattern, and that there are particular interventions to try to address the associated deficits. Having a listing in the DSM doesn't make things any more or less 'real', but some/many people imagine that it does. Just because there isn't a diagnostic criteria for a very shy child (although I imagine one could be found if looking hard enough), that doesn't mean that there aren't programmes to help the child be more comfortable with social interaction.
This becomes most manifestly a problem when conducting genetic, neurobiological, or even treatment research into the causes for 'a disorder'. Because these disorders are symptom clusters, and often have substantial variation in presentation, they are at times artificially grouped for research. This can hinder research into specific subgroups who show more common characteristics. Similarly, if there is a presentation which includes two DSM disorders (e.g. depression and anxiety, which is a very common comorbidity) then these people will tend to be systematically excluded from research because they are defined as 'having comorbidity'. Are both 'disorders' caused by the same underlying cause? Who knows, but being separate DSM disorders means that this group tends to be very underrepresented in research.
On top of this, there is the involvement of vested interests in the development of disorders, there is the interpretation of things as 'wrong' because they are a DSM disorder, etc.
In summary, the DSM can be useful for clinicians to communicate a summary to each other, when accompanied by further detail. It can provide gross groupings for treatment research, but lacks finesse of distinction which could help tailored treatments to individual characteristics rather than the broader presentation. People suddenly seem to think something is 'real' because it appears in the DSM, and so push to have ever more 'disorders' included. This all makes DSM as much of a hindrance as a help to good research and mental health practices.
Wait, just so I'm clear: you're saying that law enforcement has the ability to do one of the following:
1. Generate an SSL certificate trusted by the browser (i.e. using a CA which is trusted by the browser) and 'MITM' the connection
2. Use an SSL certificate which doesn't derive trust from a trusted CA, but prevent the browser from notifying the user that the certificate is invalid
3. Has the actual certificate of the server the traffic to which they want to interept
I guess they could also just be intercepting using untrusted certificates and hoping people ignore it - and most probably would.
There are two different types of 'fakes' (and maybe more)
One is where a fake site is set up for a real journal, and suckers authors into submitting to it (and more importantly, paying for submission). It is basically phishing.
The other is what appears to the public (and potentially other academics) to be an academic journal that has no standards for submission other than the fee. It is good for submitting claptrap to later refer to.
True, but it does provide an avenue to check for external keys.
I don't have an iThing so I can't check, but if you can activate a new device and receive your iMessage messages while the previous device on which those messages were held is switched off, then at best the messages are protected by a password. It may be the passphrase for an encryption key, but it is still just a password. If you can get Apple to reset the password, and then activate a new device and receive your iMessage with your old device being off the whole time, then Apple must be able to read the messages (because the password can't be the key, or be a passphrase for the key, as the key is accessible with the password being changed).
There are also other permutations: if the old device must be on to configure iMessage on a new device, then there may be a key transferred from device to device. Without knowing the specifics of iMessage, I can't predict many other tests.
I'm mainly using a 13 inch Macbook and the laptop screen, so the location at the top of the screen is good for (because it is typically close, and is always predictable). Also, I like that I can always move my eyes (and pointer) right to it (because I hit the top of the screen). I also use a graphics tablet a lot so always knowing where the menu location will be on the tablet is handy for me.
On multiple monitors, though, it is rather annoying. And as you say, when you're using a large screen it will be more hindrance than help.
There are a lot of things I loathe about Finder:
1. If I paste, it goes into the folder I am currently 'in', not the folder I currently have selected. I have to double-click the folder to go into it before pasting, which means I lose my context.
2. Cut and paste are annoying to use (you have to copy, then hold control+option+V, and that only recently became available)
3. There is no easy way to copy the full path of the current folder to the clipboard
4. Typing characters to find what you're looking for in the current folder list never seems to work as expected
5. It remembers the mess of folder I had last time, and there is no easy way to close all those folders (some people probably like this behaviour, mind you)
6. Pasting a folder into a location with another folder of the same name deletes the existing folder and entirely replaces it, eliminating all its contents. Strictly speaking, this is more an issue of what you're used to, and they did finally add the 'merge' option.
There are more, but I only remember them as I hit them time and time again.
I have used both Linux and Windows pretty extensively for my desktop system, and for servers (not always my choice). I love using Linux servers (specifically CentOS) - they perform well for the tasks I use them for, and they are rock solid.
I miss Linux on my Macbook Air probably about as often as I miss having Windows on my Macbook Air. There are plenty of things I don't like about Apple: expensive hardware often lagging on the performance-features front (e.g. USB3 took a while), their 'our way or get lost' approach, how truly awful Finder is (and it is truly awful), and all of the bollocks about 'It just works' (it mostly works). However, I can use the apps I need on it (e.g. Photoshop: and no, Gimp is not a replacement; MS Office: and no, OpenOffice is not a replacement). The touchpad functionality is brilliant (multi-touch, swiping, etc). Menu bars always at the top of the screen is genius, as it turns out. I don't need to deal with installing GTK+, QT, etc etc - although this is mainly just an artifact of the packaging system.
So in essence, I don't feel like a traitor. I feel like I'm using different OSs for different things based on their match to my needs. Mind you, I revisit Linux fairly regularly to check on how it is going as a desktop OS (and was one of the weird folk who didn't mind Gnome 3), and it is certainly getting better, but I always wind up back on OSX (or Windows, prior to that).
If I stop being able to install apps without the app store, or they all need to be digitally signed and approved by Apple, then you'll see me switching to something else faster than you can blink, but that's a ways off yet.
I think this is spot on.
When I do a broad search on what I am trying to do, I almost invariably end up with StackOverflow. It's great: there are sometimes some good code examples, often people asking exactly the question in my mind, and a bit of discussion on the topic. Then, to get more context about the code involved, the classes, etc I will refer to the official reference material.
I think this balance reflects that there is a small group of people who read the official documentation and work out how to do things, and then a much larger group of people who ask how to do those things on StackOverflow. The first group answers the questions of the second on StackOverflow so it essentially becomes a giant FAQ on the language or technology being discussed. When someone in the broader community wants to do something, they can search using keywords relevant to what they are attempting to do, and this will (unsurprisingly) match a question on StackOverflow; and indeed, in this case what they want is the answer to the question, not the reference documentation which may be related.
(In practice, it is probably also that the first group writes books on the topic, a second group reads the books, and the question-askers are actually the third tier from the documentation).
People were skilled in being fucking idiots long before smart phones.
However, offloading some memory tasks isn't necessarily a bad thing if the alternative is spending active time trying to memorise these things (I'm mainly thinking of rote-memorising facts). That time may be better spent actually actively thinking.
Then again, actually having memorised a range of information may be instrumental for novel ideas which draw on the variety.
There are a number of things you can say about a smartphone, but - emasculating? Seriously? Out of what orifice did he pull THAT?
The messy one left behind after too much smartphone time.
There are two ways of dealing with this: getting this person off [i]your[/i] network, and getting this person off [i]everyone's[/i] network.
Personally, I think if you can get everyone to squeeze him off their networks then that will probably be the nicest kind of vengeance.
Consider writing up a simple letter (starting with: Just a note from a neighbor), detail that someone in the area has been breaking into wireless networks and may be pirating stuff/doing illegal things which could lead to difficulties for the actual owner of the OP. Then, provide a basic summary of what to do to avoid it (e.g. disable WPS, etc etc) and maybe even provide URLs for the major router manufacturers.
With [i]some[/i] luck, [i]some[/i] people will pay attention and lock down their network.
If you know who it is doing it (using handy phone apps to detect signal strength, or a directional antenna) then you could do a 'special' letterbox drop for that one person with a 'how to buy an internet connection'.
Mind you, if this person is using an 'evil twin' they may be doing more than just stealing Wifi. If their MAC address is stable (i.e. they are not modifying it) you may want to capture some sample traffic with that included. If things do go awry you can use that to provide evidence it was that person's computer, possibly.
A couple of points:
1. The research wasn't completely privately conducted (universities, and other government-funded organisations were involved), so I think there is probably some reasonable expectation that the community will benefit as a result.
2. I don't think it is acceptable for the manufacturer of the test to be able to set whatever price it chooses, even if that involves mandated licensing. That isn't to say that the business should not be able to make a respectable profit - after all, there was some risk involved on their part. However, because of the implications of the government-granted monopoly I think it is fair to have some constraints on that monopoly even within the 20 years.
3. The real issue is actually the patenting of the gene itself. Patenting of the test is fine: it is an invention, and so a monopoly can be granted on that. However, the same can't be said of the genes.
If the outcome of treatment is consistently better for the automated system than for a human doctor, then the insurance premiums for the automated system will be lower than for a human doctor. Not only that, insurers will not have to worry about whole classes of problems: e.g. inappropriate interactions with clients.
If you add a human cross-checking the output of the automated system to avoid gross errors, then that would potentially help to identify bugs. Frankly, even if there are bugs which cause problems, if the result is still better treatment then that is still a win (for patients).
If the Basis band guys integrated an oximeter that would fulfil all the monitoring criteria. Mind you, they need to also provide raw data export, and clear documentation on sensitivity, error correction, and filtering used.
It seems like an almost brilliant device, ruined by failure rates, needing to be registered with an online system to get any data, a complete inability to get raw data, and no API. I'd be ordering one if I could be sure it would come in the next 6 months and I'd be able to read the data from it.
I think the parent was meaning that by providing security updates as subcomponents of the OS rather than full OS updates, then the drivers wouldn't need to change (unless the secure issue was in the driver itself).
However, your point is basically right. If you look over at XDA-developers, a common pattern is that one manufacturer stops providing updates for a device (e.g. Acer A500, for which the last official update was 4.0.x) so Android mod developers have to dig around for other devices using the same chipsets but that received later updates in order to get compatible drivers (for the A500, I believe that is one of the Asus Transformer models).
Manufacturers have an impetus not to provide major OS updates, because that reduces the differentiators on which they can sell the new model. This does need to be balanced against the reputation cost of having shabby update support (e.g. Motorola received a lot of hate about the Motorola Defy, which was released with a two-version-ago OS, was updated to a one-version-ago OS, and has a locked bootloader so replacing the OS is a pain. This case was particularly bad, because the Motorola Defy+ was released shortly thereafter with the current OS version, and the only difference was the camera and clock speed). Samsung seems to balance this pretty well, HTC so-so, Motorola very poorly.
If drivers didn't need to be modified between Android versions that would be a big advantage for Android mod developers, and probably for the handset manufacturers as well. Those manufacturers are not even releasing minor updates within a major OS version, though (which don't involve drivers changes, to my knowledge) so the basic issue isn't drivers - it is handset manufacturer retiscence (be it for cost or laziness reasons).
A proportion of voting-age people, sampled at the beginning of each year, could be a good way to go.
The downside being that as population increases, the ability to effectively organise doesn't necessarily scale identically.
They should ignore the petitions about "building Death Stars" and respond to the realistic ones, such as legalizing marijuana.
This is not difficult.
I can't tell if you're being funny or not, but actually you've hit the nail on the head: it isn't always easy to differentiate serious and 'humorous' petitions. Legalizing marijuana is a real issue for many people, and I think the current criminalization in so many countries is a terrible idea, but such a petition could equally be created as a joke.
Also, what is crazy (not humorous, but properly nuts) to one person is not crazy to another. e.g. a petition to deport someone for their views on gun control. Crazy? Yes, I think so, but those putting it up didn't think so. Needs a response? Equally, yes.
I live in Australia too and although gun violence does happen here, it is the exception rather than the rule. I'd say current system of gun laws is working reasonably well.
Being an island does make importing guns illegally more difficult, which helps.
Mass killing with firearms are indeed a small subset of murders. The focus could be redirected to the larger number of murders with firearms which are not mass killings.
'But you can kill with x' where X is knives, baseball bats, metal bars, toothpicks, whatever.
- X have uses other than killing, although the argument could possibly be made for some specific types of X
'But outlaws will have guns anyway'
- Initially, yes; but as soon as someone shoots at someone, they are an outlaw so this is kind of definitionally correct. Also, by having easily availability of guns, the 'outlaws have guns' situation is perpetuated.
'Only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun'
- Maybe you're right. Lucky that police have guns.
'Why not focus on curing cancer instead of gun control?'
- I suspect cancer researchers are not being dragged off to work on gun control; I am pretty sure that cancer research and gun control can occur simultaneously.
*permos = person
Then there is the fact that there is 0 correlation between success in life and IQ
Tell that to an intellectual disabled permos (defined as IQ 75 in Australia).
It is a long way from a perfect correlation, but to claim there is 0 correlation is rubbish unless you are choosing some fairly bizzare measures of 'success'.
1. It's not exploitation if the homeless/unemployed person does this voluntarily for a wage (aka a job).
To dig into the ideas of 'voluntary' and 'exploitation':
Would it be exploitation for me to find unemployed women who are falling behind on their rent and have no savings, and then offer $5k for sex? Or to offer domestic abuse victims enough money for a refuge if they stand almost naked on street corners with the words 'Loser' painted across their body? Or to give a junkie enough cash for heroin if they will paint their body with their own shit?
If the answer is no because the actions are voluntary, then I think you and I have different conceptions of 'voluntary'.
If you think that these actions are involuntary, in contrast to the homeless/unemployed person, then I think you need to consider how free a homeless and unemployed person are to reject what may be their only source of income.
This study is really a revelation for me, the findings are highly non-obvious. I had thought that people would wait indefinitely for the video to appear, based on the "sunken costs" theory, i.e. I've already invested mm minutes and ss seconds waiting for this to appear and it might appear at any moment.
This actually captures well why people should hesitate before deriding studies which have seemingly obvious outcomes. This study may be on the margins of that - although it is the quantification that is actually interesting about it - but sometimes studies find counterintuitive results. Even better, if a study produces a what may be a counterintuitive result then hindsight bias means people will tend to revise memories so they believe that was the expected outcome all along.
When was the last time you upgraded a CPU and didn't get a new motherboard? Never?
About a 2 months ago, but it was an AMD, not an Intel.I swapped the Athlon X2 in the Asus M2N-E motherboard (purchased circa 2006) over to an Athlon II X4. Because of AMDs socket compatibility, I was able to put the Socket AM3 CPU into the Socket AM2. I then added a new mid-range video card (Gigabyte Nvidia GeForce GTX 560), and the machine is now snappy and good for games again.Total cost: ~$300 (the CPU was a bit overpriced because it is already a little dated; still a damn side cheaper than a new motherboard and processor. Plus I could keep using my existing RAM.
As has been noted, it seems that Intel is much faster at rolling over their CPU socket designs.