The Google Glass is likely just the start of the more intimate computing interface industry. So either the industry flops and so no problem, or the industry takes off.
In the latter case, safety would dictate that either cars be made more autonomous (less dependent on driver control) or that public transport be changed to accomodate. Not sure what you could do for the latter but right now the big disincentive to public transport is lack of reliability, privacy, and cleanliness. Improvements would likely turn the tide. As for funding, if say, half the cost of annual private vehicle ownership were instead put completely in to the public transport infrastructure, wouldn't that be sufficient to fuel and sustain the required changes?
... and this was the opportunity. The complaint and tweet were completely appropriate; would a similar reaction to a couple of goofs making KKK or holocaust jokes or slurring some Middle Eastern religion in a public place have been acceptable? No. Both would have deserved the action the conference organizers took.
BUT loss of employment? You might expect a slap on the wrist, right? Unless the employer was looking for an excuse, say, the company was tired of similar behaviour in the workplace. Yeah, this was just an excellent opportunity to get rid of a workplace problem.
If linux came in a package as sexy as any Apple hardware, why would you want anything else? All the OS' are flawed in some respect and all have the average user at the mercy of the company/devs: Apple tyranny, MS tyranny, or Linux tyranny (yes, the constant churn of package dependencies, dead projects, etc.), it's all similar. The stand out is the packaging: Apple = uber sexy, PC = affordable and ugly.
So maybe Linux can make more inroads if say a kickstarter project puts together something as gorgeous as a Macbook Air with hardware that has open drivers.
Conjuring up a threat, a fear of an enemy, is a standard methodology in preparing a public to give up freedoms. "War on drugs...", "the terrorist threat...", "the domino theory...", and so many more. Each one used to justify government mandated restrictions on freedoms eg. personal searches at airports. Point out in each case how 'we have come out stronger'; billions of dollars later the 'threats' remain, as do the the losses of freedoms. Ask yourself, who came out ahead in the end?
In each case, consider the truth of the purported threat. In this case, 'destabilize the internet'? The internet was designed to resist destabilization, no?
27" iMac 4-core with 8 GB RAM - cost ~$1800CAN A competitive screen (same resolution) from Samsung costs $1100CAN. Add in a good wireless keyboard and mouse, the RAM, HD, etc. and the difference between the homebuilt PC and iMac is maybe $200CAN BUT... you have a big ass, noisy box sitting on or near your desk with wires snaking to and from the monitor. Conversely, the iMac fits cleanly, quietly, and completely on your desk. If you want to game, maybe there is an argument for the PC. If you need to work or relax and enjoy some media, Apple... period.
Here's the problem (forgive the shout) BIOLOGY HAS NO FIRST PRINCIPLES. When a physicists set out to do an experiment, they start with first principles to establish a theory. This avoids wasting resources on pointless 'what if' s. Biology has nothing of the sort. Consider this experiment (which the TFA suggests has something to do with exploring the limits of the brain's plasticity):
a) done on the larval stage of a life form when cell development is at its most flexible unlike a mature human brain. Note as the tadpole becomes a frog, the tail is absorbed suggesting it plays a role in development and is a fertile area for growth eg. stem cell rich; b) what are the commonalities between the human and amphibian brains (and tadpole butts); and c) what understanding is there of the amphibian brain/body system. From the TFA itself it is staggeringly poor; the blinded tadpoles without ass-eyes reacted to the LED's and so "may" have another means of detecting light (a very IMPORTANT factor in this case since it invalidates the experiment).
A first principles approach would at least have identified the last item, tadpoles can detect light via something other than their eyes. Ergo, this experiment was pointless. Biology is not science, it is butterfly collecting, and when biologists get it in to their heads to pretend to be scientists, the acts they commit stagger the mind.
As an aside, do you know what the 'learning' was? One LED meant 'shock'. The other meant 'no shock'. What was 'learnt' was to exhibit fear actions when a 'shock' LED appeared. Just ponder that situation from the blinded tadpole point of view for a second.
Only real miss: Best Supporting Actor (Swartz vice Tommy-Lee... prediction was off by a good margin) Other miss but too close to call: Best Director (Lee vs Afleck but they margin between the two in the prediction was so close as to be noise)
A company has spent a fortune isolating a gene and identifying what the implications of mutations in that gene are. That is a good and useful thing, right? We would like to encourage that. Now then, how do we reward the company for their work?
... the debris? Repurposing an asteroid for interstellar travel seems a far easier way of constructing a large ship; simply tunnel out the living spaces, strap on a propulsion system, and you're on your way. Best part? Early warning systems in alien solar systems will not react as you will be classified as normal space debris.
Reducing CFC's was a good thing regardless of ozone holes, etc. They are toxic and bad for the environment, period, ozone holes or no. Reducing the carbon footprint is also a good thing as it means using things efficiently vice producing so much waste, regardless of climate effects. Why do we need a 'spin' to somehow make it real? Inefficiency leads to waste leads to rapid depletion leads to the disappearance of valuable resources.
That's what netbooks offered and still do. Perfect for touching up a presentation on a long flight without having to double the amount of carry-on with a fracking laptop case/bag. Macbook Air provides precisely that functionality but at $1200US compared to the average netbook's $200-300. Tablets? They are entertainment, _not_ working machines. MS Surface might seem like a good working tablet, but it's priced as a laptop; MS successfully co-opting both the network and tablet markets while extorting an unreasonable price. Once again, big companies hijacking affordable computing from users.
The error margin is 50%? So the 2.4 was twice what was expected BUT with the margin of error, it actually could be what was expected? What is satisfying is seeing someone actually included the error margin. The climate models never seem to. The best you can say is that they reflect their assumptions very precisely, you just never know how bad the assumptions are.
The article starts by making the statement that the "CO2 emissions" are responsible for the climate change. The nuance in this study is the inclusion of a new feature: "... include simulations of how ocean chemistry would interact with an atmosphere with higher carbon dioxide levels in the future". So the sources of error are the corelation of 'emissions' to climate changes AND the modeling of the interaction of CO2 with the ocean (and coral's hardiness in the face of change). The latter two in particular are still very very poorly understood. So the margins of error are pretty big on this new model. Bravo on the modelling work but stop with the calls for sweeping changes based on them.
If your car (or aircraft!) were designed with models of such comparably low granularity and poorly understood principles, you'd be dead... if the governement even let them on the road (or skies).
turn in to tumors?! And that's a known hazard?? That's a bit of info I never read in all the articles I've seen here that are 'pro' embryonic stem cell research/use.
Famous last words, as well as being the second evidence of protectionism of the 'profession' of medicine. The first was the reason NOT to autopsy as making medical staff uncomfortable as it might reveal mistakes. The second downplaying of the technology's potential is typical. Machines are already on-par with humans for diagnostic accuracy virtually anywhere they've been used. The machine's problem is that when a mistake is made, it can't baffle the patient with BS to talk their way out of a lawsuit nor do they have a profession ready to leap to their defense.
High school gives you a broad overview so you enter adulthood with half a clue, so you can understand to some degree what the media, advertisers, etc. are telling you. After high school nothing prevents additional education, in fact, shouldn't education really be an ongoing process? If the author really sees high school as a last chance to learn something like 'public speaking', what a sad sad statement.
Mind you, that kind of attitude does pave the way for the fulfilment of Ayn Rand's vision of how things should be.
Could they/have they set up crowd sourcing of the planning and construction that must come next. I, for one, would happily give a week or two of my time to work on the site. I can bring carpentry, electrical, data management, and project management skills. Any others up for somethinng similar?
Slashdot Mirror
The Google Glass is likely just the start of the more intimate computing interface industry. So either the industry flops and so no problem, or the industry takes off.
In the latter case, safety would dictate that either cars be made more autonomous (less dependent on driver control) or that public transport be changed to accomodate. Not sure what you could do for the latter but right now the big disincentive to public transport is lack of reliability, privacy, and cleanliness. Improvements would likely turn the tide. As for funding, if say, half the cost of annual private vehicle ownership were instead put completely in to the public transport infrastructure, wouldn't that be sufficient to fuel and sustain the required changes?
... and this was the opportunity. The complaint and tweet were completely appropriate; would a similar reaction to a couple of goofs making KKK or holocaust jokes or slurring some Middle Eastern religion in a public place have been acceptable? No. Both would have deserved the action the conference organizers took.
BUT loss of employment? You might expect a slap on the wrist, right? Unless the employer was looking for an excuse, say, the company was tired of similar behaviour in the workplace. Yeah, this was just an excellent opportunity to get rid of a workplace problem.
Yeah a new home grown invasive species !! Reaching back in time to create the next pestilence :)
He and others have theorised, spoken to, and proven this over and over again over the past several decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Gold
Also his book: Deep Hot Biosphere and paper of same title (http://www.pnas.org/content/89/13/6045.full.pdf+html)
If linux came in a package as sexy as any Apple hardware, why would you want anything else? All the OS' are flawed in some respect and all have the average user at the mercy of the company/devs: Apple tyranny, MS tyranny, or Linux tyranny (yes, the constant churn of package dependencies, dead projects, etc.), it's all similar. The stand out is the packaging: Apple = uber sexy, PC = affordable and ugly.
So maybe Linux can make more inroads if say a kickstarter project puts together something as gorgeous as a Macbook Air with hardware that has open drivers.
Conjuring up a threat, a fear of an enemy, is a standard methodology in preparing a public to give up freedoms. ...", "the terrorist threat ...", "the domino theory ...", and so many more. Each one used to justify government mandated restrictions on freedoms eg. personal searches at airports. Point out in each case how 'we have come out stronger'; billions of dollars later the 'threats' remain, as do the the losses of freedoms. Ask yourself, who came out ahead in the end?
"War on drugs
In each case, consider the truth of the purported threat. In this case, 'destabilize the internet'? The internet was designed to resist destabilization, no?
Listen to what he actually said and move along to real news.
27" iMac 4-core with 8 GB RAM - cost ~$1800CAN ... you have a big ass, noisy box sitting on or near your desk with wires snaking to and from the monitor. Conversely, the iMac fits cleanly, quietly, and completely on your desk. ... period.
A competitive screen (same resolution) from Samsung costs $1100CAN. Add in a good wireless keyboard and mouse, the RAM, HD, etc. and the difference between the homebuilt PC and iMac is maybe $200CAN BUT
If you want to game, maybe there is an argument for the PC. If you need to work or relax and enjoy some media, Apple
Here's the problem (forgive the shout) BIOLOGY HAS NO FIRST PRINCIPLES.
When a physicists set out to do an experiment, they start with first principles to establish a theory. This avoids wasting resources on pointless 'what if' s. Biology has nothing of the sort. Consider this experiment (which the TFA suggests has something to do with exploring the limits of the brain's plasticity):
a) done on the larval stage of a life form when cell development is at its most flexible unlike a mature human brain. Note as the tadpole becomes a frog, the tail is absorbed suggesting it plays a role in development and is a fertile area for growth eg. stem cell rich;
b) what are the commonalities between the human and amphibian brains (and tadpole butts); and
c) what understanding is there of the amphibian brain/body system. From the TFA itself it is staggeringly poor; the blinded tadpoles without ass-eyes reacted to the LED's and so "may" have another means of detecting light (a very IMPORTANT factor in this case since it invalidates the experiment).
A first principles approach would at least have identified the last item, tadpoles can detect light via something other than their eyes. Ergo, this experiment was pointless. Biology is not science, it is butterfly collecting, and when biologists get it in to their heads to pretend to be scientists, the acts they commit stagger the mind.
As an aside, do you know what the 'learning' was? One LED meant 'shock'. The other meant 'no shock'. What was 'learnt' was to exhibit fear actions when a 'shock' LED appeared. Just ponder that situation from the blinded tadpole point of view for a second.
Only real miss: Best Supporting Actor (Swartz vice Tommy-Lee ... prediction was off by a good margin)
Other miss but too close to call: Best Director (Lee vs Afleck but they margin between the two in the prediction was so close as to be noise)
Good enough.
... peaks as the indentured foreign workers bolster their incomes by selling company information. A few well publicize cases will set things right.
A company has spent a fortune isolating a gene and identifying what the implications of mutations in that gene are.
That is a good and useful thing, right? We would like to encourage that.
Now then, how do we reward the company for their work?
... the debris? Repurposing an asteroid for interstellar travel seems a far easier way of constructing a large ship; simply tunnel out the living spaces, strap on a propulsion system, and you're on your way. Best part? Early warning systems in alien solar systems will not react as you will be classified as normal space debris.
Reducing CFC's was a good thing regardless of ozone holes, etc. They are toxic and bad for the environment, period, ozone holes or no.
Reducing the carbon footprint is also a good thing as it means using things efficiently vice producing so much waste, regardless of climate effects.
Why do we need a 'spin' to somehow make it real?
Inefficiency leads to waste leads to rapid depletion leads to the disappearance of valuable resources.
... author gets published by quantifying it somewhat in a certain context. Move along.
... what? So they've found something to do with recycled plastic, bury it. Yeah, progress.
That's what netbooks offered and still do. Perfect for touching up a presentation on a long flight without having to double the amount of carry-on with a fracking laptop case/bag. Macbook Air provides precisely that functionality but at $1200US compared to the average netbook's $200-300. Tablets? They are entertainment, _not_ working machines. MS Surface might seem like a good working tablet, but it's priced as a laptop; MS successfully co-opting both the network and tablet markets while extorting an unreasonable price. Once again, big companies hijacking affordable computing from users.
... should be any leader's mantra, unless you intend to rule by fear and intimidation.
The error margin is 50%? So the 2.4 was twice what was expected BUT with the margin of error, it actually could be what was expected?
What is satisfying is seeing someone actually included the error margin. The climate models never seem to. The best you can say is that they reflect their assumptions very precisely, you just never know how bad the assumptions are.
The article starts by making the statement that the "CO2 emissions" are responsible for the climate change. The nuance in this study is the inclusion of a new feature: "... include simulations of how ocean chemistry would interact with an atmosphere with higher carbon dioxide levels in the future". So the sources of error are the corelation of 'emissions' to climate changes AND the modeling of the interaction of CO2 with the ocean (and coral's hardiness in the face of change). The latter two in particular are still very very poorly understood. So the margins of error are pretty big on this new model. Bravo on the modelling work but stop with the calls for sweeping changes based on them.
If your car (or aircraft!) were designed with models of such comparably low granularity and poorly understood principles, you'd be dead ... if the governement even let them on the road (or skies).
turn in to tumors?! And that's a known hazard?? That's a bit of info I never read in all the articles I've seen here that are 'pro' embryonic stem cell research/use.
Famous last words, as well as being the second evidence of protectionism of the 'profession' of medicine. The first was the reason NOT to autopsy as making medical staff uncomfortable as it might reveal mistakes. The second downplaying of the technology's potential is typical. Machines are already on-par with humans for diagnostic accuracy virtually anywhere they've been used. The machine's problem is that when a mistake is made, it can't baffle the patient with BS to talk their way out of a lawsuit nor do they have a profession ready to leap to their defense.
High school gives you a broad overview so you enter adulthood with half a clue, so you can understand to some degree what the media, advertisers, etc. are telling you. After high school nothing prevents additional education, in fact, shouldn't education really be an ongoing process? If the author really sees high school as a last chance to learn something like 'public speaking', what a sad sad statement.
Mind you, that kind of attitude does pave the way for the fulfilment of Ayn Rand's vision of how things should be.
Didn't read them well ... they a PiHKAL and TiHKAL ... spelling.
Could they/have they set up crowd sourcing of the planning and construction that must come next. I, for one, would happily give a week or two of my time to work on the site. I can bring carpentry, electrical, data management, and project management skills. Any others up for somethinng similar?