Not old. Go and retrain, or not. Your question is procrastination at its worst, how the hell would anyone else but you know whether you should retrain or not? Really!?
If they put this up for contract it, they would get _zero_ serious bids. That shows exactly how serious they are. This was a cheap way of garnering media attention with a hot internet topic.
Who ever said 'organic' had more or less nutrients. It's always been about the growth environment ie. lack of pesticides, artificial growth supplements, etc. What's more frightening is that these were scientists. The comment about the variability of nutrients between plants is common knowledge which, you would think, would have rendered the need for the study kind of doubtful.
More useful would have been a study on:
a) the non-nutrient compound differences ie. besides nutrients, what compounds are present and how do they differ between organic and non-organic? b) what of the non-nutrient compounds are good/bad for consumers and to what degree? c) how have the levels of non-nutrient compounds changed over the years ie. have non-organic foods seen a rise or decrease in non-nutrient compounds and how does that affect consumers?
10% less efficiency is 10% _less_, it's wasteful, no matter how much power is involved. Wouldn't you be delighted if your vehicle was 10% more fuel efficient? And yet, the car companies will make a big show over small single digit improvements.
Instead of grandiose carbon sequestering schemes or other mad schemes to attempt to control the purported man-fuelled climate change, why not instead simply try to do things more efficiently? Energy consumption inevitably continue to grow simply because the planet's population will continue to grow. The most practical way to deal with the associated environmental impact is to lessen the byproducts through efficient consumption.
Releasing a study reflecting its own cultural bias, from which it stands to profit handsomely, laced with insinuated fears lacking any kind of meaningful statistics. _This_ is the state of medicine. It's about the money.
When the region was a mecca of science and math... it was run by men... and women were excluded from the affairs of the state and from education. So the changes being instigated are a return to the way things were when the region was a mecca of science and math.
When did the human race become omnipotent? How can we have so much faith that we can 'fix Earth' when we don't even really understand how it works (follow _any_ science blog and note how many time scientists are 'surprised to discover that...')?
Those able to do so, should hack in to every system they can in Malaysia and insert illicit content. When it becomes apparent how easy it is to make anyone guilty of posting any content, and when the justice system finds itself overwhelmed, maybe someone will rethink the legislation.
That said, this could be a convenience law ie. never used except when law enforcement is looking for a way to 'get' someone.
... initiate a call to the perps, precisely triangulate the location of the phone source through common RF firection finding, use passive detection using your own cell and responding perps cell signals (add in others for more precision). Would have been complicated to do once upon a time but tech is there to do it now. Reply to this post if you want to take this idea to market:-)
The title would make you think 2000 published scientists were giving time to the event. No. More like an assortment of grad students, lab techs (maybe), and various types of youths (high school, street, art students) looking for a party. That was it except for one bona fide prof. The impassioned organizer admitted on radio that the protest was organized without having brought any issues to government attention ie. no attempt at contacting govt officials for a dialogue, etc.
The fact is, scientists are supported pretty nicely by the Canadian governement. The govt has an agenda of pushing the subsidizing of science on to industry ie. make Canadian industry invest in research. That can mean diminishing govt research funding in areas where it is felt industry can do better. In fact, rather than protesting against the easy target (govt), maybe scientists/public should be asking industry to get off their collective cans and start doing serious research.
The scientists who work for the govt have it best and no reason at all to complain. As public servants, they are not subject to 'publish or perish', they can choose between two career streams of management or scienctific management (a boon for scientists who suck at research but are good at organizing things), after competing for and winning a position it is theirs indefinitely if they so choose (and don't commit a crime... and incompetence isn't a crime), the pay is exceptional, the funding is consistent (there is never a year of zero funds and where univ profs scrabble for $10K here or there, they speak in $100K chunks), and parking is (for most) free. The disgruntled few, coincidentally those who've never worked in industry or academia, bitch about not being able to spout off to the media at will but instead having to go through govt public relations staff (they feel they are 'muzzled')... ummm, just like the scientists at Microsoft, HP, NASA, etc. have to?
Plaintiff: The drugs had undocumented side-effects that have left me paralyzed from the neck down.
Lawyers for the Defence: Your honour, we have documented proof that the plaintiff did not adhere strictly to the dosage regimen specified. If the medication had been taken properly, the "side-effects" would not have manifested.
From the article, if you have access to the training data and know the learning algorithm, you can game the machine learning (SVM,not AI) system. How is that anything but self-evident, non-news?!
The network described would not work unless everyone had 'like mind' and 'like skills'. The former is impossible in humans. The latter would involve prohibitive training costs for an army... that's why they have 'specialists'. Even ants and bees, the standard examples of hive-mind, have specialists. And, of course, the BORG had a pro-active Queen.
Dear Scientists: The earth is changing. Get over it. Study it, and have fun doing so. Your recommendations however, are just ego driven and likely wrong. We know you smart and all, but really, not as much as you think.
Dear Everyone Else: If you really think we have sufficient engineering and scientific knowledge to keep the planet from changing, to bend it to our will, then you are hopelessly stupid. Get back to your partying, soaps, reality TV, or whatever. Or get a bit of an education so that you understand what a crock of BS the well meaning, self-infatuated scientists are feeding you.
The climate change debate is simply an ego driven load of claptrap promoted by selfish, opportunistic business and political motives. When nature ceases to surprise scientists, then perhaps their pronouncements will be credible. Until then, all they have are educated guesses.
Who knew Arctic waters were CO2 sinks? Never heard that one till now. It's not like you see a post here on/. saying "Don't forget that the Arctic Ocean is a CO2 so maybe..."
And who knew the plankton blooms could be so big? You would almost think that biologists knew it all, and then something like this happens Or life is discovered in an impossible place where it was never thought it could survive.
So much still to be discovered by those who study our planet. So much is unknown. And yet... the climate models are accurate and the source of all climate ills is human. So let's implement sweeping policy changes and apply engineering measures to control the atmosphere, the water, the land.
There seems to be a pretty strong theme of "the climate is changing because of humans" in the posts. Ok, let's look at that.
Remember the 60'/70's when the hoopla over pollution switched in to overdrive? Remember Silent Spring? Few in this forum likely do. Just saying that the whole "climate change" rant is the latest "Look what humankind is doing to the planet!!" rant. We've been there and done that. But, back then, and now, the fact remains that the person most responsible for is... you.
Back then, people were dumping toxins in rivers and their trash on the street. And now? Same thing. Worried about CO2? What is your footprint AND please include your remote footprint ie. the industries _you_ cause to be through your consumption. We consume more than we ever have and in a more wasteful fashion than ever before... check the contents and amount of your trash, or how much paper your workplace tosses out every month. In this neck of the woods, not a house goes up that doesn't have air conditioning, 1-in-three has a pool running its pumps 24/7 all summer, all home climate controls run 24/7 even with nobody home, and an SUV decorates the driveway of every fifth house ('cause some people have trucks). And most relevant to this forum: how many additional electronic gadgets do you have in your home sipping electricity 24/7 compared to, say, your grandparents when they were your age? Yeah, small amounts individually but total them up and multiply by all your neighbours, etc.
So, the question is not if or why the climate is changing. The question is: who gives a s**t? The answer, if drawn from the observed _actions_ (not rants), of the average person is... nobody.
Think about it. An intelligence agency gets a 'treasure trove' of information and then tells the world that they found it... oh, and it was hidden in a most compromising way that discredits the religious credibility of the purported religious fanatics.
Think: when the Allies during World War II broke the German codes, did they tell everyone they had? NO. They kept quiet about it and used the information against the UNSUSPECTING enemy. If they had done otherwise, the Germans would have changed their coding methods and the Allies would have been deprived of all that intelligence. Get it?
So if a US intelligence agency really had such information, they wouldn't be telling anybody... kind of like they never told anyone that they knew exactly where Bin Laden was.
If I hadn't already done so, I would lose all faith in CNN's reporting... or propaganda.
Having worked with Canadian government scientists for some time, the truth is that any delays in response to the press are simply because people are trying too hard to get it perfect. Most are terrified of making a mistake for fear of being pilloried by the media, and that fear is justified. If replies take too long, the 'bureaucrats' are running interference. Make an honest mistake or oversight, the 'bureaucrats' are lying/covering up. It's depressing.
Slashdot Mirror
Not old. Go and retrain, or not. Your question is procrastination at its worst, how the hell would anyone else but you know whether you should retrain or not? Really!?
If they put this up for contract it, they would get _zero_ serious bids. That shows exactly how serious they are. This was a cheap way of garnering media attention with a hot internet topic.
Who ever said 'organic' had more or less nutrients. It's always been about the growth environment ie. lack of pesticides, artificial growth supplements, etc. What's more frightening is that these were scientists. The comment about the variability of nutrients between plants is common knowledge which, you would think, would have rendered the need for the study kind of doubtful.
More useful would have been a study on:
a) the non-nutrient compound differences ie. besides nutrients, what compounds are present and how do they differ between organic and non-organic?
b) what of the non-nutrient compounds are good/bad for consumers and to what degree?
c) how have the levels of non-nutrient compounds changed over the years ie. have non-organic foods seen a rise or decrease in non-nutrient compounds and how does that affect consumers?
blah blah blah MIGHT CAUSE blah HORRIBLENESS blah CATASTROPHE blah AWFULNESS
Or ... it MIGHT NOT
When they say 'MIGHT', what exactly is the probability they are suggesting? Pretty much unknown ... like most climate related FUD.
10% less efficiency is 10% _less_, it's wasteful, no matter how much power is involved. Wouldn't you be delighted if your vehicle was 10% more fuel efficient? And yet, the car companies will make a big show over small single digit improvements.
Instead of grandiose carbon sequestering schemes or other mad schemes to attempt to control the purported man-fuelled climate change, why not instead simply try to do things more efficiently? Energy consumption inevitably continue to grow simply because the planet's population will continue to grow. The most practical way to deal with the associated environmental impact is to lessen the byproducts through efficient consumption.
Releasing a study reflecting its own cultural bias, from which it stands to profit handsomely, laced with insinuated fears lacking any kind of meaningful statistics. _This_ is the state of medicine. It's about the money.
When the region was a mecca of science and math ... it was run by men ... and women were excluded from the affairs of the state and from education. So the changes being instigated are a return to the way things were when the region was a mecca of science and math.
If the owner can remote control the car, so will the state:
"Escaping dissident's vehicle drives him to prison."
"Dissident's vehicle drives him into a tree, killing him."
When did the human race become omnipotent? How can we have so much faith that we can 'fix Earth' when we don't even really understand how it works (follow _any_ science blog and note how many time scientists are 'surprised to discover that ...')?
Those able to do so, should hack in to every system they can in Malaysia and insert illicit content. When it becomes apparent how easy it is to make anyone guilty of posting any content, and when the justice system finds itself overwhelmed, maybe someone will rethink the legislation.
That said, this could be a convenience law ie. never used except when law enforcement is looking for a way to 'get' someone.
... initiate a call to the perps, precisely triangulate the location of the phone source through common RF firection finding, use passive detection using your own cell and responding perps cell signals (add in others for more precision). Would have been complicated to do once upon a time but tech is there to do it now. Reply to this post if you want to take this idea to market :-)
The title would make you think 2000 published scientists were giving time to the event. No. More like an assortment of grad students, lab techs (maybe), and various types of youths (high school, street, art students) looking for a party. That was it except for one bona fide prof. The impassioned organizer admitted on radio that the protest was organized without having brought any issues to government attention ie. no attempt at contacting govt officials for a dialogue, etc.
The fact is, scientists are supported pretty nicely by the Canadian governement. The govt has an agenda of pushing the subsidizing of science on to industry ie. make Canadian industry invest in research. That can mean diminishing govt research funding in areas where it is felt industry can do better. In fact, rather than protesting against the easy target (govt), maybe scientists/public should be asking industry to get off their collective cans and start doing serious research.
The scientists who work for the govt have it best and no reason at all to complain. As public servants, they are not subject to 'publish or perish', they can choose between two career streams of management or scienctific management (a boon for scientists who suck at research but are good at organizing things), after competing for and winning a position it is theirs indefinitely if they so choose (and don't commit a crime ... and incompetence isn't a crime), the pay is exceptional, the funding is consistent (there is never a year of zero funds and where univ profs scrabble for $10K here or there, they speak in $100K chunks), and parking is (for most) free. The disgruntled few, coincidentally those who've never worked in industry or academia, bitch about not being able to spout off to the media at will but instead having to go through govt public relations staff (they feel they are 'muzzled') ... ummm, just like the scientists at Microsoft, HP, NASA, etc. have to?
Plaintiff: The drugs had undocumented side-effects that have left me paralyzed from the neck down.
Lawyers for the Defence: Your honour, we have documented proof that the plaintiff did not adhere strictly to the dosage regimen specified. If the medication had been taken properly, the "side-effects" would not have manifested.
Some good may come off this ... and very much bad.
When will they learn not to introduce foreign species?
From the article, if you have access to the training data and know the learning algorithm, you can game the machine learning (SVM,not AI) system. How is that anything but self-evident, non-news?!
It will be sequestered for centuries ... a nuclear sink.
Out of curiousity, after centuries, what happens?
The network described would not work unless everyone had 'like mind' and 'like skills'. The former is impossible in humans. The latter would involve prohibitive training costs for an army ... that's why they have 'specialists'. Even ants and bees, the standard examples of hive-mind, have specialists. And, of course, the BORG had a pro-active Queen.
If you can't tag and track REAL documents ... then can't you tag and track FAKE documents.
If you have to 'learn' a users typing or searching habits, the user can control what is learned ergo the system can be deceived right from the start.
So, this is really about putting fear in the hearts of potential, amateur 'evil' doers.
Dear Scientists: The earth is changing. Get over it. Study it, and have fun doing so. Your recommendations however, are just ego driven and likely wrong. We know you smart and all, but really, not as much as you think.
Dear Everyone Else: If you really think we have sufficient engineering and scientific knowledge to keep the planet from changing, to bend it to our will, then you are hopelessly stupid. Get back to your partying, soaps, reality TV, or whatever. Or get a bit of an education so that you understand what a crock of BS the well meaning, self-infatuated scientists are feeding you.
The climate change debate is simply an ego driven load of claptrap promoted by selfish, opportunistic business and political motives. When nature ceases to surprise scientists, then perhaps their pronouncements will be credible. Until then, all they have are educated guesses.
Who knew Arctic waters were CO2 sinks? Never heard that one till now. It's not like you see a post here on /. saying "Don't forget that the Arctic Ocean is a CO2 so maybe ..."
And who knew the plankton blooms could be so big? You would almost think that biologists knew it all, and then something like this happens Or life is discovered in an impossible place where it was never thought it could survive.
So much still to be discovered by those who study our planet. So much is unknown. And yet ... the climate models are accurate and the source of all climate ills is human. So let's implement sweeping policy changes and apply engineering measures to control the atmosphere, the water, the land.
Yeah, whatever.
Would the Pi be a good match for the Haiku OS ... or vice versa?
I'm impressed with how well written your post is. Nicely done. I wish I could write like that.
There seems to be a pretty strong theme of "the climate is changing because of humans" in the posts. Ok, let's look at that.
Remember the 60'/70's when the hoopla over pollution switched in to overdrive? Remember Silent Spring? Few in this forum likely do. Just saying that the whole "climate change" rant is the latest "Look what humankind is doing to the planet!!" rant. We've been there and done that. But, back then, and now, the fact remains that the person most responsible for is ... you.
Back then, people were dumping toxins in rivers and their trash on the street. And now? Same thing. Worried about CO2? What is your footprint AND please include your remote footprint ie. the industries _you_ cause to be through your consumption. We consume more than we ever have and in a more wasteful fashion than ever before ... check the contents and amount of your trash, or how much paper your workplace tosses out every month. In this neck of the woods, not a house goes up that doesn't have air conditioning, 1-in-three has a pool running its pumps 24/7 all summer, all home climate controls run 24/7 even with nobody home, and an SUV decorates the driveway of every fifth house ('cause some people have trucks). And most relevant to this forum: how many additional electronic gadgets do you have in your home sipping electricity 24/7 compared to, say, your grandparents when they were your age? Yeah, small amounts individually but total them up and multiply by all your neighbours, etc.
So, the question is not if or why the climate is changing. The question is: who gives a s**t? The answer, if drawn from the observed _actions_ (not rants), of the average person is ... nobody.
Think about it. An intelligence agency gets a 'treasure trove' of information and then tells the world that they found it ... oh, and it was hidden in a most compromising way that discredits the religious credibility of the purported religious fanatics.
Think: when the Allies during World War II broke the German codes, did they tell everyone they had? NO. They kept quiet about it and used the information against the UNSUSPECTING enemy. If they had done otherwise, the Germans would have changed their coding methods and the Allies would have been deprived of all that intelligence. Get it?
So if a US intelligence agency really had such information, they wouldn't be telling anybody ... kind of like they never told anyone that they knew exactly where Bin Laden was.
If I hadn't already done so, I would lose all faith in CNN's reporting ... or propaganda.
Having worked with Canadian government scientists for some time, the truth is that any delays in response to the press are simply because people are trying too hard to get it perfect. Most are terrified of making a mistake for fear of being pilloried by the media, and that fear is justified. If replies take too long, the 'bureaucrats' are running interference. Make an honest mistake or oversight, the 'bureaucrats' are lying/covering up. It's depressing.