Someone needs to tag this article "wikiality." What exactly gives this guy the idea that government should be involved in deciding to meddle in what is a politically approved "fact" or not?
But the bacterium is specific to one particular family of pests - bees will not be affected by this.
Not necessarily. Just because the bacterium that generates the toxin only grows well in certain hosts doesn't mean that the toxin itself is harmless to other species. That aside, research currently shows that Bt corn (aka maize) does not affect honey bees.
I wonder how those around him have been forced to change their lives based on the fact that they're being so thoroughly documented.
Personally, the idea of this creeps me out. I mean, if you want to completely destroy your own privacy, I guess that's okay, but if you want to damage the my privacy by recording everything I do in your presence, then that's different.
Let's use the GNOME application Evince as an example. Evince is a PDF (and other) file reader. The GNOME usability gurus, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that hiding preferences in an option or preferences dialog is bad UI design. They'd rather have all your viewing options up front in the menus.
Not bad, except for one thing -- there's no way that I can find to set a default for the settings you want to use to view a PDF. Everytime I open a PDF in Evince, I have to spend a few seconds turning off "continuous" display of pages (which mucks with paging through a document), setting the zoom level to "best fit," closing the thumbnails view, and resizing the window. Evince will remember these changes for about 30 or so files (I think) for the next time you open them. If you open a lot of different files, or you're viewing a new file, this memory is utterly useless and you have to change your settings over again. It gets to be a real drag.
There's no menu option for "use current settings as default," and the only reference I can find to preferences is a message on their bug tracker where a developer basically shoots down a request for globally persistent preferences stating that it's not what they want to do.
The attitude of the the Evince developers is that their "smart" sizing choices should always be the default, and they ask users to attempt to justify why they should be allowed to set personal preferences with the attitude that they must explain why they're rejecting the defaults that the developers prefer. That sort of looking down your nose at users is just intolerable in my opinion.
The only reason I haven't dumped Evince entirely is because it reads CBZ & CBR files.
The problem isn't really the cell phone, the problem is the inability of the majority of the population to focus on more than one task at once.
If by the majority of the population you mean "human beings," I would agree with you. It's a fundamental problem in the hardware of the brain. Basically, paying attention while driving uses the same "channel" in the brain that responding in conversation uses. We "speak" to ourselves when navigating. There's a fundamental bandwidth limitation.
Read more on dual-task separation research at the University of Utah's psychology department.
Invariably, some politician will 'correct' the problem by restricting *my* right to use a phone.
The problem is that a lot of people are fundamentally unaware of how much talking while driving detracts from their ability to drive. Studies show that you're just as dangerous as "those other drivers." You just might not be aware of it.
(Well, I suppose there is a difference between people who are *trying* to pay attention to the road and blathering idiots, but you're still not as safe as someone who isn't talking.)
I'm going to argue that "qubit" will most likely never be shorted, and certainly not to "quit."
One often over-looked factor in the shortening of words (because its completely subjective and unquantifiable) is whether or not the original word was cooler sounding and rolled off the tongue or not. "Bigit" just doesn't. "Qubit" is better. Both are two syllable words, so brevity isn't as much a factor, for English speakers at least, as it is for other shortened words like "auto." Ultimately, the relative awkwardness of saying the long version would be a greater factor.
However, I think the biggest factor stopping the use of "quit" is that it's semantically confusing. Using the word "bit" for a binary digit meshes well with an existing meaning -- a small piece or fragment. Even without knowing the etymology of "bit," a new reader to the subject material quickly absorbs its meaning because of this. Using "quit" for quantum bit does not really mesh with existing meanings and would only add confusion to new readers. I don't think it'll catch on for that reason.
Talking about politics without expressing any actual viewpoint is pointless. The purpose of debate is controversy. Rational arguments can & SHOULD offend people.
What the GP is talking about is crossing the line between presenting a moral dilemma and pushing an agenda.
The best political plot lines ask a question. The worst try to force an answer. You most you can do without ruining a story is to suggest one by framing the story to be in favor of it, but once your characters become mouthpieces for the "correct" answer, you've lost the story.
I mean bad story and bad dialogue and bad characterization aren't horrible enough? Now we're going to get stupid 8th-grade reading level political treatises as well?
Hey, sometimes it really works out well for you. Just look at Ayn Rand.
The original poster merely stated that "[f]acts of nature (such as the sequence of a gene) are not patentable." If we're going to narrow the discussion to only discovered sequences instead of created sequences, then we have to consider the patenting of the uses of said sequences.
Numerous patents exist for various genetic tests, and this is widely considered to be legal. After all, it's natural to patent novel uses of existing materials, and the current standard for non-obviousness is lax enough to allow the patent-described use of a set of genes whose function was previously unknown to qualify. While the genes themselves can't be patented, any interaction with them for the purpose of diagnosing an illness can be.
In addition, the CAFC heard In re Fisher in 2005 on patents on gene fragments (discovered in nature). The decision struck down the use patents for gene fragments, but only were they do not have a "specific and substantial" utility. In other words, where patents on gene fragments do have "specific and substantial" utility, they are allowed.
Now, if patents can cover any practical uses of a gene outside of natural reproduction, then it's equivalent to patenting the gene itself for purposes of what patent protection grants to the holder of the patent. A suitably broadly written patent and claims can easily nail down any practical application of a gene sequence, so we've already long crossed that line.
Is this a weakness in a particular player, in a particular driver, or in the standard reference method of decrypting a disc that allowed the guy at Doom9 to figure out how to get the player key?
What exactly is this "processing key," and how fundamental / changeable is it?
I'm aware that it's hard for the congenitally deaf to learn to read and write in essentially a foreign language, but is there a single school program for deaf students in America that doesn't teach them literacy?
If so, I'd consider that program barbaric for failing to attempt to help deaf children assimilate into the nation that surrounds them.
What? That they almost rely exclusively on stilted data generated by people with little formal training in the arena they're critiquing?
Seeing as your point seems to be that we should treat all sides even handedly, even when one side repeatedly keeps going back to disproven theories and when that side frequently resorts to experiments with inadequate rigor, I'm glad to help you dig yourself deeper.
The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community.
Yeah, yeah, and it's real black eye on the scientific community that they aren't giving creationists and flat earthers a fair shake either.
Crichton's argument relied entirely on already disputed or disproven data, and furthermore he made wild, libelous accusations about the professional and ethical motives of climate scientists. Why exactly should anyone take seriously the arguments of a man who didn't do his research and calls you a member of a global conspiracy to hide "the truth?"
So while I respect your opinion, you are factually incorrect.
Oh, you're certainly right on that. I was just trying to explain (in an ineffective way) why a lot of people on Slashdot revile viral marketing but like entertaining examples of it. They, like me, most likely only think of viral marketing as a pejorative instead of the standard definition. They're not hypocrites. They just most likely have attached the term to a different concept in their heads.
Outside of the ad industry, I don't think everyone uses viral marketing as a neutral term. It's kind of like the way that programmers have a hacker/cracker distinction, but the general public uses hacker to cover both. The term carries different connotations from the factually correct definition for a lot of people.
Heh. Then again, outside the ad industry, I don't think most people don't think of the word "marketing" as a neutral term -- could just be my own biases talking here, though.
Maybe you want to virtualize Mac OS X on a Mac and run it simultaneously with Windows or Linux. Maybe you want to run multiple instances of the OS on a single set of hardware for application separation. Server consolidation for Mac OS X servers is just as valid of a desire as for any other OS.
Maybe you want to test a security hole in an application against a live piece of malware and want to easily roll back the OS. Maybe you want to QA a piece of software in development without mangling an existing stable version, or you'd like to run them side by side when both rely on the same path for certain libraries or config files.
Pretty much any valid use of virtualization for Windows or Linux is a valid use for Mac OS X as well.
Meh. I'd rather not tilt at windmills when our energy policy is at stake. Solutions for global warming don't need to hit the speed bump of trying to undo the War on Drugs.
I say dodge the issue entirely. I'm really more worried about having to fight the corn lobby with a problem-free, better-suited crop than by handicapping myself with a crop that carries a lot of other baggage along with it.
By the way, thanks for drawing my eyes to it. Oh, and for confirming it. I might've just brushed it off as some random Slashdotter messing with people, but no, you've handled that one.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone needs to tag this article "wikiality."
What exactly gives this guy the idea that government should be involved in deciding to meddle in what is a politically approved "fact" or not?
Well, screw that, then! Damn the torpedos, open the dump valves, club all the seals, and full-speed ahead!
Just and aside, but I'm frequently bemused by/frustrated with people who seem to search for the single point of failure in any problem.
But the bacterium is specific to one particular family of pests - bees will not be affected by this.
Not necessarily. Just because the bacterium that generates the toxin only grows well in certain hosts doesn't mean that the toxin itself is harmless to other species. That aside, research currently shows that Bt corn (aka maize) does not affect honey bees.
odd: S: (adj) odd (an indefinite quantity more than that specified) "invited 30-odd guests"
I don't know if it's a regional thing nor where the original poster is from, but we use the word "odd" this way very frequently where I'm from.
Out of curiosity, what kind of accommodations do you make?
I wonder how those around him have been forced to change their lives based on the fact that they're being so thoroughly documented.
Personally, the idea of this creeps me out. I mean, if you want to completely destroy your own privacy, I guess that's okay, but if you want to damage the my privacy by recording everything I do in your presence, then that's different.
Uncompetitive behavior by a monopoly can sometimes be illegal and bad.
Wait. Stop right there.
Give us an example of when anticompetitive behavior is good.
Let's use the GNOME application Evince as an example. Evince is a PDF (and other) file reader. The GNOME usability gurus, in their infinite wisdom, have decided that hiding preferences in an option or preferences dialog is bad UI design. They'd rather have all your viewing options up front in the menus.
Not bad, except for one thing -- there's no way that I can find to set a default for the settings you want to use to view a PDF. Everytime I open a PDF in Evince, I have to spend a few seconds turning off "continuous" display of pages (which mucks with paging through a document), setting the zoom level to "best fit," closing the thumbnails view, and resizing the window. Evince will remember these changes for about 30 or so files (I think) for the next time you open them. If you open a lot of different files, or you're viewing a new file, this memory is utterly useless and you have to change your settings over again. It gets to be a real drag.
There's no menu option for "use current settings as default," and the only reference I can find to preferences is a message on their bug tracker where a developer basically shoots down a request for globally persistent preferences stating that it's not what they want to do.
The attitude of the the Evince developers is that their "smart" sizing choices should always be the default, and they ask users to attempt to justify why they should be allowed to set personal preferences with the attitude that they must explain why they're rejecting the defaults that the developers prefer. That sort of looking down your nose at users is just intolerable in my opinion.
The only reason I haven't dumped Evince entirely is because it reads CBZ & CBR files.
10 millihertz sounds more like a throb than a hum to me, perhaps even a chug.
Yes, but on a geological timescale, it's a hideous high-pitched whine.
The problem isn't really the cell phone, the problem is the inability of the majority of the population to focus on more than one task at once.
If by the majority of the population you mean "human beings," I would agree with you. It's a fundamental problem in the hardware of the brain. Basically, paying attention while driving uses the same "channel" in the brain that responding in conversation uses. We "speak" to ourselves when navigating. There's a fundamental bandwidth limitation.
Read more on dual-task separation research at the University of Utah's psychology department.
Invariably, some politician will 'correct' the problem by restricting *my* right to use a phone.
The problem is that a lot of people are fundamentally unaware of how much talking while driving detracts from their ability to drive. Studies show that you're just as dangerous as "those other drivers." You just might not be aware of it.
(Well, I suppose there is a difference between people who are *trying* to pay attention to the road and blathering idiots, but you're still not as safe as someone who isn't talking.)
I'm going to argue that "qubit" will most likely never be shorted, and certainly not to "quit."
One often over-looked factor in the shortening of words (because its completely subjective and unquantifiable) is whether or not the original word was cooler sounding and rolled off the tongue or not. "Bigit" just doesn't. "Qubit" is better. Both are two syllable words, so brevity isn't as much a factor, for English speakers at least, as it is for other shortened words like "auto." Ultimately, the relative awkwardness of saying the long version would be a greater factor.
However, I think the biggest factor stopping the use of "quit" is that it's semantically confusing. Using the word "bit" for a binary digit meshes well with an existing meaning -- a small piece or fragment. Even without knowing the etymology of "bit," a new reader to the subject material quickly absorbs its meaning because of this. Using "quit" for quantum bit does not really mesh with existing meanings and would only add confusion to new readers. I don't think it'll catch on for that reason.
Talking about politics without expressing any actual viewpoint is pointless. The purpose of debate is controversy. Rational arguments can & SHOULD offend people.
What the GP is talking about is crossing the line between presenting a moral dilemma and pushing an agenda.
The best political plot lines ask a question. The worst try to force an answer. You most you can do without ruining a story is to suggest one by framing the story to be in favor of it, but once your characters become mouthpieces for the "correct" answer, you've lost the story.
I mean bad story and bad dialogue and bad characterization aren't horrible enough? Now we're going to get stupid 8th-grade reading level political treatises as well?
Hey, sometimes it really works out well for you. Just look at Ayn Rand.
The original poster merely stated that "[f]acts of nature (such as the sequence of a gene) are not patentable." If we're going to narrow the discussion to only discovered sequences instead of created sequences, then we have to consider the patenting of the uses of said sequences.
Numerous patents exist for various genetic tests, and this is widely considered to be legal. After all, it's natural to patent novel uses of existing materials, and the current standard for non-obviousness is lax enough to allow the patent-described use of a set of genes whose function was previously unknown to qualify. While the genes themselves can't be patented, any interaction with them for the purpose of diagnosing an illness can be.
In addition, the CAFC heard In re Fisher in 2005 on patents on gene fragments (discovered in nature). The decision struck down the use patents for gene fragments, but only were they do not have a "specific and substantial" utility. In other words, where patents on gene fragments do have "specific and substantial" utility, they are allowed.
Now, if patents can cover any practical uses of a gene outside of natural reproduction, then it's equivalent to patenting the gene itself for purposes of what patent protection grants to the holder of the patent. A suitably broadly written patent and claims can easily nail down any practical application of a gene sequence, so we've already long crossed that line.
Is this a weakness in a particular player, in a particular driver, or in the standard reference method of decrypting a disc that allowed the guy at Doom9 to figure out how to get the player key?
What exactly is this "processing key," and how fundamental / changeable is it?
I'm aware that it's hard for the congenitally deaf to learn to read and write in essentially a foreign language, but is there a single school program for deaf students in America that doesn't teach them literacy?
If so, I'd consider that program barbaric for failing to attempt to help deaf children assimilate into the nation that surrounds them.
What? That they almost rely exclusively on stilted data generated by people with little formal training in the arena they're critiquing?
Seeing as your point seems to be that we should treat all sides even handedly, even when one side repeatedly keeps going back to disproven theories and when that side frequently resorts to experiments with inadequate rigor, I'm glad to help you dig yourself deeper.
You need to be more familiar with Supreme Court rulings:
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 1980
Wish he had written this months ago... ...and thereby saved me the tedium of having to read Next.
Personally, reading Sphere saved me the tedium of having to read Next (and pretty much all the other books he's written since the mid-90s).
The sad fact that he is slowly being ostrasized for his differing viewpoint a black eye on the science community.
Yeah, yeah, and it's real black eye on the scientific community that they aren't giving creationists and flat earthers a fair shake either.
Crichton's argument relied entirely on already disputed or disproven data, and furthermore he made wild, libelous accusations about the professional and ethical motives of climate scientists. Why exactly should anyone take seriously the arguments of a man who didn't do his research and calls you a member of a global conspiracy to hide "the truth?"
So while I respect your opinion, you are factually incorrect.
Oh, you're certainly right on that. I was just trying to explain (in an ineffective way) why a lot of people on Slashdot revile viral marketing but like entertaining examples of it. They, like me, most likely only think of viral marketing as a pejorative instead of the standard definition. They're not hypocrites. They just most likely have attached the term to a different concept in their heads.
Outside of the ad industry, I don't think everyone uses viral marketing as a neutral term. It's kind of like the way that programmers have a hacker/cracker distinction, but the general public uses hacker to cover both. The term carries different connotations from the factually correct definition for a lot of people.
Heh. Then again, outside the ad industry, I don't think most people don't think of the word "marketing" as a neutral term -- could just be my own biases talking here, though.
Maybe you want to virtualize Mac OS X on a Mac and run it simultaneously with Windows or Linux. Maybe you want to run multiple instances of the OS on a single set of hardware for application separation. Server consolidation for Mac OS X servers is just as valid of a desire as for any other OS.
Maybe you want to test a security hole in an application against a live piece of malware and want to easily roll back the OS. Maybe you want to QA a piece of software in development without mangling an existing stable version, or you'd like to run them side by side when both rely on the same path for certain libraries or config files.
Pretty much any valid use of virtualization for Windows or Linux is a valid use for Mac OS X as well.
Meh. I'd rather not tilt at windmills when our energy policy is at stake. Solutions for global warming don't need to hit the speed bump of trying to undo the War on Drugs.
I say dodge the issue entirely. I'm really more worried about having to fight the corn lobby with a problem-free, better-suited crop than by handicapping myself with a crop that carries a lot of other baggage along with it.
Is this better?
By the way, thanks for drawing my eyes to it. Oh, and for confirming it. I might've just brushed it off as some random Slashdotter messing with people, but no, you've handled that one.
Good job!