Does having control over fabrication and design mean that they can, at source, include useful features like backdoors, rootkits, etc. In short, processors easily remotely co-opted by the government for citizen monitoring, espionage, and conducting cyberwarfare.
They knew full well what they were up to; they didn't say "potty head" or "stinky pants". You're naive. The kids had already had years of indoctrination about the dangers of pedophiles and the serious badness of 'inappropriate touching', etc. Obviously you don't have kids. What is sad is that their characters are so twisted at such a young age. Scary.
So far, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada, Canadians are allowed to download for personal use. Uploading seems to still be problematic.
And as mentioned, the bastards are already collecting a tariff on the media (CD's, etc.).
I remember being at a Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) in 2002 and be told earnestly by an attendee that there was no noise in the brain =) Anyways, I think that the brain's neurons use whatever input is available as long as it consistently (by some measure) leads to 'good for the organism'. Inputs that aren't immediately useful are not noise (which has a negative connotation) but are ignored. Or stated otherwise, what is noise now may be useful input should an organism's context change.
There seems to be a persistent belief that the brain is somehow an isolated black box rather like a CPU in a computer. But the brain, like the rest of our bodies, is immersed in it's environment. It directly feels the effects of that environment and its processes must necessarily be modulated by that environment. For survival, it seems to me that the most surprising result would be if the brain did _not_ use every possible source of information to its fullest.
A judge still has to rule on this. Will s/he be having a look at the big picture ie. the seemingly intentional breaking of the law and the discrepancy between the perceived value of licensing depending on whether the music industry is payed or paying for it? IANAL and so wonder if the indignation and disbelief expressed here will also be felt by someone with legal power.
In a country that censors the least criticism from it's internet, that blacks out media while it suppresses a border nation, and sanitizes its news to the point of near irrelevance, are we to believe that "enthusiasts" were permitted to photograph a developing military fighter?
Chinese police happily confiscate cameras and imprison people photographing far more benign items (say, a square where nothing at all took place) than advanced weaponry. An airbase where an advanced aircraft was being tested would likely be ringed with surveillance ready to pounce on any gawkers. Of course that is unlikely too... frankly, in what universe would China be testing a new military aircraft so openly? Surely there are secret, isolated airbases in the country that would be perfect for the task.
When the plane flies at an international airshow, then it will be real. Otherwise, well, think about it.
The only real science is physics, all the rest... well, look at this.
a) collect some fish and systematically poison them. Observe time to death; b) conclude any resistance must be due to evolutionary adaptation; and c) make pithy remarks about catering to the native culture by making process sustainable.
Uh guys... it was sustainable before you got there since they've been doing it for a very very long time and only stopped when they were made to ie. NOT because the fish all died.
And if it was evolutinary lots more fish would have the gene no? So maybe include fish from NOT in the cave/stream at all and see if they have similar 'resistance' ratios?
And the final blow. Perhaps just perhaps the fish had this genetic resistance _before_ the natives started doing their thing... hard to say as nobody was there to measure millenia ago.
Physics starts with first principles and speculates on the universe... it predicts and then searches for validation. Biology, lacking similar first principles simply collects examples (that regularly surprise) or conduct pseudo science with grandiose conclusions.
Oh well, the grant money eventually finds its way back in to the economy and these guys a happy doing what they do so its all good.
The policy came in to being because it became clear decades ago that dealing with the media requires training because the latter are adept at spinning stories to their own ends (like the TFA). Unfortunately, whenever a government employee speaks, the govt (NOT the employee) is called to account for it so yeah, the guys in charge want to hear whats going to be said first so they don't get blind-sided. It is surprising that the policy only got enforced at Environment Canada so recently as it is (and has been) common practice in every other department you'd care to think of (likely true in _any_ govt anywhere).
As for this specific case:
a) there is a procedure that is pretty streamlined and if there was an unseemly delay it was likely because the scientist didn't get off his butt and push the paperwork through ('Oh, I'm a scientist. We shouldn't have to do administration."); b) being a scientist, the statement he planned to release likely needed editing because it was poorly written for a media context. Just because you can write a scientific paper doesn't mean you can write; and c) the scientists paper is available to the public. The media could have gone ahead with a comment or opinion of their own OR sought the comment of a scientist who was not employed by the govt just like all the other news agencies.
That last point is an important one. If any govt employee wants carte blanche to speak to the media, then get out of the govt. Otherwise, get with the program. Take the media relations courses the govt offers its employees (free of charge), anticipate the timelines on the various administrative protocols and thank gawd you are in a position where (unlike most of your colleagues) you get to do research without the burden of teaching, soliciting funding from industry, or worrying about "publish or perish".
"Muzzled"? Hah. The reporter and scientist were too lazy to put in the work for the science story and defaulted with an easy to write conspiracy theory. That's what's wrong with the media, and why policies for release are needed.
You never said you needed a new system. You said your problems were "Windows 7" (don't particularly like) and "case is too big and noisy".
a) You want a UI for the non-Slashdot crowd. That would be Windows based. Suck it up Princess but that's what normal folk like and understand so make that a concession to the family and friends; and
b) Downsize your case. Asus, Eee, and others all make really nice small footprint machines. Get one of those. No fuss, no muss, no changing over your whole working system to something new. If you want to get really DIY, rip the guts from a suitable laptop (used), chuck the screen (well, put is aside for another project), and make a nice, tasteful, low profile box to put them in.
Honestly, your "problem" is really silly. A big noisy case? WTF, you have to ask how to solve that? Honestly, who really put your system together?
Disregard the negative commentary (like any teacher is trying to fail students... grow up!)
In order of priority:
a) spreadsheets - Excel, OpenOffice, whatever. How could anyone do a lab without using one for tables, calcs, and graphing? Make them mandatory for experiment reports;
b) Latex - to show there is a paradigm other than WORD and its the software for writing journal articles.
Finally, check out this site. I've only ever seen free molecule visualization software (eg - PyMOL) but there might be some other stuff.
Inefficient use of an energy resource is NOT what is needed. Even if it cost as little as wire, it delivers energy less efficiently and puts more demands on resources to deliver the energy. And, no, it will never be efficient because of the square law.
Our problem isn't the energy consumed, it's that through inefficiency we waste resources.
Actually you did. Calculus gave you an appreciation of the meaning of equations and rates of change. That's what school is about, see? It isn't just to give you tools to do a job. It is to expand your awareness of the world around you. Calculus, being all about change, gives you an implicit higher level understanding of the changing world around you. It isn't about the equations, it's about the concepts.
And frankly, if you just went to school to learn what you need to know in your future job... everyone would pretty much have to know what it was they were going to do after school. Only place that seems to work is in the trades. It certainly is very uncommon in university.
You know... yours is the first mention of "fat error bars" in any of the posts I've read so far. Is there a link?
I've wondered what the margins of error are on the models as they must be quite large. Weather models use linear techniques to reduce the number of variables to something more manageable. If the same techniques are used in climate models (as is likely) then there must be a quick growing and large error as you extrapolate.
If this were simply an academic debate, you would be right in your comments about cranks. But this isn't an academic debate. This debate affects people directly. Governments are enacting policies, people's reputations are being made and destroyed, money is moving in quantity to the detriment of other proven issues, and fear is being sown in the population. Therefore, yes, absolute faith and trust must be paramount.
In fear of highly speculative future possible problems, we are turning away from the real existing problems at hand. Enough worry about the sky maybe falling sometime to come, there are millions suffering and dying now.
The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.
The oceans cover what, two-thirds of the planet? The study shows that they are not understood completely... in a significant way.
Here's the problem: climate is a chaotic system. Remember how a butterfly flapping it's wings in China, can create a storm in North America ie. small changes have potentially large effects. Therefore, this change to an "accessory" could have a potentially large effect on the models... and that can be said of all aspects of the models that are not completely understood.
Slashdot Mirror
How low can you go and still get a decent 3-D representation? And what kind of resolution? Could this be used for surveying difficult terrain?
Maybe the failure was that no one who was tech savvy deemed it worthwhile to create a language that could be popular.
So here's a challenge: instead of bitching about js come up with something that can draw users away from js.
If you can't, then who's the failure?
... how do you really feel?
From the organization's "About" page:
Freedom House is widely recognized as the definitive source of information on the state of freedom around the globe.
And yet the 'global' assessment left out many major countries eg. Canada, Japan, etc.
So, neither definitive nor global and, when you read it, meaningful. Why was this posted? Is it because Australia was out of the top three?
Does having control over fabrication and design mean that they can, at source, include useful features like backdoors, rootkits, etc. In short, processors easily remotely co-opted by the government for citizen monitoring, espionage, and conducting cyberwarfare.
They knew full well what they were up to; they didn't say "potty head" or "stinky pants". You're naive. The kids had already had years of indoctrination about the dangers of pedophiles and the serious badness of 'inappropriate touching', etc. Obviously you don't have kids. What is sad is that their characters are so twisted at such a young age. Scary.
A new republic arising and seeking a fuller participation of its people in its governance.
So far, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada, Canadians are allowed to download for personal use. Uploading seems to still be problematic. And as mentioned, the bastards are already collecting a tariff on the media (CD's, etc.).
I remember being at a Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) in 2002 and be told earnestly by an attendee that there was no noise in the brain =) Anyways, I think that the brain's neurons use whatever input is available as long as it consistently (by some measure) leads to 'good for the organism'. Inputs that aren't immediately useful are not noise (which has a negative connotation) but are ignored. Or stated otherwise, what is noise now may be useful input should an organism's context change.
There seems to be a persistent belief that the brain is somehow an isolated black box rather like a CPU in a computer. But the brain, like the rest of our bodies, is immersed in it's environment. It directly feels the effects of that environment and its processes must necessarily be modulated by that environment. For survival, it seems to me that the most surprising result would be if the brain did _not_ use every possible source of information to its fullest.
.... believe it when you see it at an international airshow held in an credible country. Otherwise ...
Egypt - Fact
New Secret Jet - Hoax
A judge still has to rule on this. Will s/he be having a look at the big picture ie. the seemingly intentional breaking of the law and the discrepancy between the perceived value of licensing depending on whether the music industry is payed or paying for it? IANAL and so wonder if the indignation and disbelief expressed here will also be felt by someone with legal power.
In a country that censors the least criticism from it's internet, that blacks out media while it suppresses a border nation, and sanitizes its news to the point of near irrelevance, are we to believe that "enthusiasts" were permitted to photograph a developing military fighter?
Chinese police happily confiscate cameras and imprison people photographing far more benign items (say, a square where nothing at all took place) than advanced weaponry. An airbase where an advanced aircraft was being tested would likely be ringed with surveillance ready to pounce on any gawkers. Of course that is unlikely too ... frankly, in what universe would China be testing a new military aircraft so openly? Surely there are secret, isolated airbases in the country that would be perfect for the task.
When the plane flies at an international airshow, then it will be real. Otherwise, well, think about it.
The only real science is physics, all the rest ... well, look at this.
a) collect some fish and systematically poison them. Observe time to death;
b) conclude any resistance must be due to evolutionary adaptation; and
c) make pithy remarks about catering to the native culture by making process sustainable.
Uh guys ... it was sustainable before you got there since they've been doing it for a very very long time and only stopped when they were made to ie. NOT because the fish all died.
And if it was evolutinary lots more fish would have the gene no? So maybe include fish from NOT in the cave/stream at all and see if they have similar 'resistance' ratios?
And the final blow. Perhaps just perhaps the fish had this genetic resistance _before_ the natives started doing their thing ... hard to say as nobody was there to measure millenia ago.
Physics starts with first principles and speculates on the universe ... it predicts and then searches for validation. Biology, lacking similar first principles simply collects examples (that regularly surprise) or conduct pseudo science with grandiose conclusions.
Oh well, the grant money eventually finds its way back in to the economy and these guys a happy doing what they do so its all good.
The policy came in to being because it became clear decades ago that dealing with the media requires training because the latter are adept at spinning stories to their own ends (like the TFA). Unfortunately, whenever a government employee speaks, the govt (NOT the employee) is called to account for it so yeah, the guys in charge want to hear whats going to be said first so they don't get blind-sided. It is surprising that the policy only got enforced at Environment Canada so recently as it is (and has been) common practice in every other department you'd care to think of (likely true in _any_ govt anywhere).
As for this specific case:
a) there is a procedure that is pretty streamlined and if there was an unseemly delay it was likely because the scientist didn't get off his butt and push the paperwork through ('Oh, I'm a scientist. We shouldn't have to do administration.");
b) being a scientist, the statement he planned to release likely needed editing because it was poorly written for a media context. Just because you can write a scientific paper doesn't mean you can write; and
c) the scientists paper is available to the public. The media could have gone ahead with a comment or opinion of their own OR sought the comment of a scientist who was not employed by the govt just like all the other news agencies.
That last point is an important one. If any govt employee wants carte blanche to speak to the media, then get out of the govt. Otherwise, get with the program. Take the media relations courses the govt offers its employees (free of charge), anticipate the timelines on the various administrative protocols and thank gawd you are in a position where (unlike most of your colleagues) you get to do research without the burden of teaching, soliciting funding from industry, or worrying about "publish or perish".
"Muzzled"? Hah. The reporter and scientist were too lazy to put in the work for the science story and defaulted with an easy to write conspiracy theory. That's what's wrong with the media, and why policies for release are needed.
You never said you needed a new system. You said your problems were "Windows 7" (don't particularly like) and "case is too big and noisy".
a) You want a UI for the non-Slashdot crowd. That would be Windows based. Suck it up Princess but that's what normal folk like and understand so make that a concession to the family and friends; and
b) Downsize your case. Asus, Eee, and others all make really nice small footprint machines. Get one of those. No fuss, no muss, no changing over your whole working system to something new. If you want to get really DIY, rip the guts from a suitable laptop (used), chuck the screen (well, put is aside for another project), and make a nice, tasteful, low profile box to put them in.
Honestly, your "problem" is really silly. A big noisy case? WTF, you have to ask how to solve that? Honestly, who really put your system together?
Disregard the negative commentary (like any teacher is trying to fail students ... grow up!)
In order of priority:
a) spreadsheets - Excel, OpenOffice, whatever. How could anyone do a lab without using one for tables, calcs, and graphing? Make them mandatory for experiment reports;
b) Latex - to show there is a paradigm other than WORD and its the software for writing journal articles.
Finally, check out this site. I've only ever seen free molecule visualization software (eg - PyMOL) but there might be some other stuff.
What the heck does a dead pope know about the Internet? Benedict XV's been dead since 1922.
Wait until we get word from Benedict XVII !
Could this simplify the proposed new treatment for MS? Instead of "surgically opening up blocked veins", just construct an appropriate bypass.
Why was there only an "artist's conception"? Surely there was an original image or mosaic?
Inefficient use of an energy resource is NOT what is needed. Even if it cost as little as wire, it delivers energy less efficiently and puts more demands on resources to deliver the energy. And, no, it will never be efficient because of the square law.
Our problem isn't the energy consumed, it's that through inefficiency we waste resources.
Actually you did. Calculus gave you an appreciation of the meaning of equations and rates of change. That's what school is about, see? It isn't just to give you tools to do a job. It is to expand your awareness of the world around you. Calculus, being all about change, gives you an implicit higher level understanding of the changing world around you. It isn't about the equations, it's about the concepts.
And frankly, if you just went to school to learn what you need to know in your future job ... everyone would pretty much have to know what it was they were going to do after school. Only place that seems to work is in the trades. It certainly is very uncommon in university.
You know ... yours is the first mention of "fat error bars" in any of the posts I've read so far. Is there a link?
I've wondered what the margins of error are on the models as they must be quite large. Weather models use linear techniques to reduce the number of variables to something more manageable. If the same techniques are used in climate models (as is likely) then there must be a quick growing and large error as you extrapolate.
If this were simply an academic debate, you would be right in your comments about cranks. But this isn't an academic debate. This debate affects people directly. Governments are enacting policies, people's reputations are being made and destroyed, money is moving in quantity to the detriment of other proven issues, and fear is being sown in the population. Therefore, yes, absolute faith and trust must be paramount.
In fear of highly speculative future possible problems, we are turning away from the real existing problems at hand. Enough worry about the sky maybe falling sometime to come, there are millions suffering and dying now.
The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.
The oceans cover what, two-thirds of the planet? The study shows that they are not understood completely ... in a significant way.
Here's the problem: climate is a chaotic system. Remember how a butterfly flapping it's wings in China, can create a storm in North America ie. small changes have potentially large effects. Therefore, this change to an "accessory" could have a potentially large effect on the models ... and that can be said of all aspects of the models that are not completely understood.