Didn't you get the memo? We've run out of descriptive terms in the language, now we have to resort to made up terms like "Revo", "Ninite", and "Blaxor"; or subvert existing terms which have a completely different meaning like "Apache", "Chrome", and "Panty Shot".
All the good terms are taken, like "Dev" and "Board".
Having a name which completely hides the function is seen as an advantage - it's a great selling point which will draw in customers. Just wait and see!
On the plus side, this also implements a framework for health sensors.
For example, the clothing could have an array of sensors which monitor various aspects of ones health - temperature, blood O2, and heart rate come to mind.
This could be linked to alerts, such as "having a heart attack". Having more information will allow us to better tune our detection criteria, will allow us to detect problems more quickly, and administer emergency care quicker.
Music evolved as a tool for learning. Rhythmic behaviour around the campfire teaching others how to hunt and all that.
Anything which our brain perceives as innovative in comparison to what we know is considered a new concept, and learning new concepts gives us pleasure (knowing more concepts is a survival trait).
So you get pleasure not from the repetition of patterns in Beethoven's Fifth, but from the interplay and differences. The pattern is set up initially, and then it's how the subsequent patterns are *different* from the initial setup that causes us to learn the much more complex rules which specify the variations. It's the learning that we perceive as pleasurable.
Patternless music is completely different from anything you've encountered. It's not surprising that it gives some people pleasure - the brain is wired to notice and process uniqueness and encode it via differences, and give pleasure in doing so.
I liked the music myself (a lot), and noticed some similarity to the works of Ginastera; specifically, "Concerto for piano and orchestra" which I also like.
As the supreme court is fond of pointing out, it is up to the legislature [or in this case, the State Department] to pass laws which are clear and specific.
We've had posts before about ISPs being told to "ban PirateBay.com" but not PirateBay.org, or to ban a specific IP address in an effort to take a website offline. Both of these are ineffective for the stated goal.
The overall opinion is that companies should implement the court instructions to the letter. Anything else might provoke the wrath of the court. Even doing something *effective* in lieu of a court's ineffective instructions is a bad move and likely to provoke a contempt of court ruling.
So Blue Coat's software is used in Syria, so what? They have followed the law and that's that. We may find their actions less than ethical, but the dividing line between ethics seems to waver depending on who and where you are. The Syrian government probably views the software as a stabilizing influence, and something that protects the population.
Put your blame where it truly lies. Write your congresscritter if you feel strongly about it.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Birth rates in all developed nations are falling fast, many are under replacement rate already. The US population would be lower than the replacement rate right now if it weren't for immigration.
The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction.
What's changing is the demographics. Once raised out of poverty, people naturally start having fewer children. There are a variety of proposed reasons for this, and the evidence is very strong.
The prediction now is that once everyone is reasonably above the poverty line (mostly Africa, with some contribution from SE Asia) population growth will reverse.
Interestingly enough, in 75 years time there may be the reverse problem - population *shrinkage*.
This is not a problem. We can all relax about this particular issue, and focus on solving the other issues, on some of which population is dependent.
For the budding psychopaths out there who want to "fit in" better with society, here's how to change your speech patterns.
1) Join Toastmasters along with someone you see frequently (a significant other, close friend, or coworker).
It's cheap, and they will teach you ways to improve your speech - how to recognize disfluencies, for instance.
2) Play a game with your partner where every time they hear you make a mistake, they say "ding!". That's all - just "ding!" every time they hear a problem.
(For what it's worth I've found that GF's are particularly good at noticing such flaws.)
It takes a week or two, but the constant feedback will eventually sink in and you'll be able to hold long conversations without saying "ah", "um", "you know", and so on.
3) Rhythm, meter, and pauses are more difficult. Find a newscaster whose vocal style you like and record one of their broadcasts.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with their point of view, only that you like their vocal variety. (You could choose Rush Limbaugh, for instance.) I chose Morley Safer.
Edit the broadcasts into individual sentences and rip these to a CD as individual tracks. While you are driving to work, play a sentence on infinite repeat. Recite the sentence along with the speaker over and over. Try to recite it exactly, mimicking the pauses and intonations.
You'll spend a few iterations just remembering the words. Once you know the words, your ear will start to pick out subtle emphasis and pauses used by the speaker. You'll start to learn when to pause (after prepositions, for instance), where to put emphasis to make a point, and so on.
When you get bored, switch to another sentence.
Don't do the mimicry thing more than a couple of weeks or you'll end up sounding *exactly* like the broadcaster. Switch to another one, mix it up a little.
As a side effect of all this, people will view your method of speech as more meaningful, you will be perceived as more reliable and confident, and people will give you greater respect.
I read once where this (reduced potency over time) is typical.
When an infectious agent jumps species, it's typically extremely virile and will easily kill the host. This puts selection pressure on the agent to be less fatal, so that the agent has more time to spread among the available hosts.
For example, the flu killed 20% of those infected in 1918, but today it's mostly an annoyance.
Probably the same thing here. A mutation results in a particularly virulent strain, which lessens in potency over time.
Radioactivity has a tendency to kick electrons around. If a particularly strong particle hits the CCD array, it will be registered on whichever pixel cell it hit. You can see this as a pixel going "white" for a brief moment on the video stream.
Put an alpha source next to a CCD array (which is otherwise light-tight) and you will get random white-pixel flashes. These are truly random, not the result of a PRNG.
The NRC considers this a "grievous offense" (their words), and people have been raided and had all their playthings confiscated for playing around with smoke detector emitters.
Find a birds nest somewhere on school grounds in the spring, mount a camera and put the live images up on the net. Allow students to watch as the eggs hatch and the chicks are reared.
This gets really *really* interesting if you can do this for a raptor nest, such as a hawk.
Web cams are generally sensitive to IR, so if you can cobble up an IR light source you can take images at night. Are there places on the grounds where critters come out at night (foxes, owls, skunks)? There's open source software to detect and automatically record movement from video feeds.
Come up with some interesting investigations that would interest the students.
Any old wells or pipes that stick up out of the ground? Can you lower a camera into one of these to see where it goes?
Webcams can be used for all sorts of data acquisition purposes, if you have some spare computers.
For instance, take a plastic egg-carton and grow 12 plants using different media (ex - a range of PH across the bays). Use a webcam to monitor the plants, and count the green pixels day-by-day to measure the relative growth rates.
Make a brush pile on school grounds and bury the web cam *within* the pile. Take an image 1/sec, and also monitor temperature. Throw out images which are the same as previous images. Use the data to watch how critters survive within brush piles, and how much insulation being in a brush pile affords.
Train a camera on the sky and take pictures over time. Count the white/blue ratio to monitor cloudiness/overcast.
This Wall Street protest is one of the most interesting phenomena that's happened in a long time.
We like to think that we know the general pulse and mood of society and that the outcomes are predictable, or at least reasonable.
If Apple comes out with the iPad, it may bomb or it may be popular - both outcomes seem to be likely given the current state of the world. If a cop is videotaped beating a suspect, it will likely go viral. If the president gives a speech, it will have little lasting importance.
The Wall Street protests are different because they are completely inexplicable. Masses of people don't protest without a reason, without a rallying point, or without a charismatic leader. There's always *something* that starts them off, that prompts people to take action. The recent London riots were precipitated by a cop shooting a civilian.
If these protests truly are just a manifestation of general popular mood, then the country could be in serious big trouble, for the following reasons:
1) If this is general popular mood, then the protests are emblematic of the mood of the *entire* population, and
2) These sorts of situations are fertile ground to grow new, charismatic leaders.
Not to Godwin the discussion or anything, but this sort of unrest has similarities to the environment that allowed Hitler to rise to power. Theoretically, potential charismatic leaders exist in our society but never become popular due to social circumstance. If the people are content, it's hard to get a following.
The protests are interesting because of all the unlikely things that have happened: it was unlikely that they would start, it was unlikely that they would grow, it was unlikely that they would spread to other cities, and it was unlikely that they would be sustained for so long.
So many unlikely outcomes are a clear indication that we can't predict the next outcome.
generate a new random large number for handing off (via cut/paste, or whatever) to a vendor, which gives them a claim for x dollars from your account... once, or whatever schedule/limits you set.... and would only work for their account, nobody elses.
This already exists, it's called "ShopSafe". It's available for many credit cards including some Visa's.
The website creates a new credit card that links to your account, so that charges to this new card appear on your statement.
The new card has a limit which you choose, and an expiry date which you also choose (default: 2 months). Once a vendor charges to the card, no *other* vendor can levy further charges.
So for example, to purchase something online for $50, ask it to generate a new card for $70 (to cover postage and taxes and whatnot) with an expiry 2 months from now. Once the vendor charges the card, it's locked to that vendor and won't accept charges from any other.
I use it all the time for online purchases and haven't had a problem yet. Unfortunately, using one of these is against Paypal's TOS (according to them, verbally)(and yes, they will freeze your account for using one), so it won't work for eBay sales.
People on this thread keep pointing out that card users have no way to keep their "super secret" numbers safe, but this is one method that works quite well.
Search for "ShopSafe" on your card's web page to see if this is available for your card.
When I articulate my views clearly and show illustrative examples, my comments get modded up. At the very least, it stimulates discussion and invites people to post counter arguments. Putting up examples puts the burden on them to counter the argument and also explain why the illustrative examples exist.
It makes for real discussion, rather than people just posting their position.
Look at other sites that just allow comments - it's mostly people saying "I feel this..." or "I think that...".
Having the moderation system forces people to be better commentators.
This is a good example of the prevailing flaw in scientific research.
You are saying, in effect, that this can't be right because it doesn't conform to your model.
That's fine, we use models all the time in science, but a model is only useful in predicting the experiment described by the model.
If you want to build something exactly described by the model, then the model will predict the outcome and your chances of success. If you want to ask interesting questions, then the model may inform your beliefs as to whether you will get interesting answers... but your model isn't more important than evidence. The model *never* trumps evidence.
Here's a man so sure of his results that he is willing to give us evidence. I agree completely that this looks a lot like frauds of bygone times, I don't personally think that he will be able to provide results, but I'm not so vain as to state he *won't* provide results.
Let's let him have his moment, and then judge the evidence. It's only a month, after all.
(Another good example is Burzynski. Everyone in that case is arguing the model, not the evidence. Don't explain *why* it doesn't work, talk about *whether* it doesn't work. Why can come later.)
This is about bringing jobs to California, not bringing jobs to America.
If a company moves from one state to another, does this make our economy somehow better?
Having states squabble and bicker and compete with each other for business does not help. It only takes up politician's time and adds bureaucracy and adminstration - effort that does not contribute to production.
Existing companies already have the employees they need to make their product. This is not true in all cases, but as a general rule it works quite well. Jobs come from new companies forming and from newish companies growing big.
We've done everything possible to stifle new business in this country[1][2], and this is just another card in that deck. Giving a break to an existing company creates a barrier for the creation of a new company which might compete. It makes the existing company weak and complacent.
If GE pays no taxes, it's hard to start a company making a competing product.
We could turn the recession around and have a vibrant economy very quickly if we could stop propping up stagnation, and focus on encouraging growth
[1] Innovation: Patent trolls, nuclear patent portfolios, submarine patents, court district shopping, DMCA, ACTA, losing tech to other countries
[2] Infrastructure: Rationed internet(data caps), net neutrality, spotty cell coverage, polluted water supply, inscrutable laws, discretionary enforcement, tax complexity, offshoring
My opponent polymorphed himself [alter self] into an image of the [other] town's mayor, then went to the biggest orc camp he could find.
He killed their spiritual leader and raped the leader's woman in full view of the assembled horde, then gave a rather insulting speech about manhood, fighting capability, and followed it up with demands that they leave the area before his "town" came out and took them all into slavery.
Then he "flew" away.
A week or so later, just about the entire orc nation descended on the (unawares & unwarned) town. They killed the men, burned the buildings to the ground, and took the women and children as slaves.
The judge [of the bet] deemed that both towns had been destroyed, but the 2nd action caused more suffering.
I once had an bet with another character to see who could perform the most evil act.
My character found a bunch of trolls and chopped them up into 1" cubes and froze them solid. He then walked all around town tossing a cube or two into all the alleyways, under porches, into the trash bins, and so on. A week later the town was gone.
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a free resource to exploit. The ISPs would like these companies to share in the burden they are placing on their networks.
That, my friend, is a detestable rewording of the issues intended to evoke sympathy from the masses.
Share the burden? Exploit resources for free? That's called framing. Was that your intent?
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers have paid for.
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers will use to get goods and services.
People thinking about starting new companies see an opportunity to start new business using the consumers broadband connection to deliver goods and services.
People thinking about starting new companies can create innovative new products and services using the consumers broadband connection.
Let's all go back to the pre-iPhone model where the telcos were gatekeepers of phone apps. In those days you were lucky to get Tetris on a phone. It wasn't the vibrant ecology of business we now have, but at least no one was "exploiting" the user's "resource".
Grow some integrity. Get a job working for someone who doesn't pay you to lie.
I've been programming microcontrollers professionally for 30 years, and around 30 years ago I started making/using microcontrollers at home for hobby projects.
At that time I was using 68HC11 micros:
a) The 68HC11 is roughly equivalent to the arduino chip of today (ie - Atmega 168) b) You could buy a 68HC11 dev board for $50, roughly equivalent to the Arduino c) The programmer was $100
This is not a whole lot different from the Arduino of today, yet 68HC11 hobbyist development was rare.
The difference is in the software. At that time, you could get any number of chips made by several manufacturers. They almost gave away their development boards, because they wanted people to have familiarity with the units. They wanted people to recommend the micros to their employers, which might lead to a big sale.
The difference is in the software. You could get hardware for around $100, but the cheapest compiler you could get was $350 at the low end, topping out at $10,000. The assembler was free. You had to type assembly language into a text editor, use command-line tools to compile and download it, then debug it instruction-by-instruction.
The reason Arduino took off was not all because of the low price, it was because of the ease of use. Atmel gave out the IDE for free, and it was almost literally plug-and-play. You could get a "blink the LED" program up and running in under an hour, including installation of software. WinAVR (based on GCC) is a perfectly acceptable C compiler, also for free.
Atmel gave out the IDE for free, then someone noticed and came out with the Arduino. Bam! Instant market penetration.
That's why the Arduino became so popular: it's because Atmel took the trouble to make using/tinkering with the unit so easy. There was almost no learning curve associated with using the system - you could concentrate almost immediately on getting your work done.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an investment in obscurity.
Didn't you get the memo? We've run out of descriptive terms in the language, now we have to resort to made up terms like "Revo", "Ninite", and "Blaxor"; or subvert existing terms which have a completely different meaning like "Apache", "Chrome", and "Panty Shot".
All the good terms are taken, like "Dev" and "Board".
Having a name which completely hides the function is seen as an advantage - it's a great selling point which will draw in customers. Just wait and see!
Cyborg is short for "cybernetic organism".
Cybernetics is the communication/interface (and control systems) between living things and machines.
So... this really is a cybernetic organism.
On the plus side, this also implements a framework for health sensors.
For example, the clothing could have an array of sensors which monitor various aspects of ones health - temperature, blood O2, and heart rate come to mind.
This could be linked to alerts, such as "having a heart attack". Having more information will allow us to better tune our detection criteria, will allow us to detect problems more quickly, and administer emergency care quicker.
Like any technology, can be used for good or bad.
Nothing wrong with you at all.
Music evolved as a tool for learning. Rhythmic behaviour around the campfire teaching others how to hunt and all that.
Anything which our brain perceives as innovative in comparison to what we know is considered a new concept, and learning new concepts gives us pleasure (knowing more concepts is a survival trait).
So you get pleasure not from the repetition of patterns in Beethoven's Fifth, but from the interplay and differences. The pattern is set up initially, and then it's how the subsequent patterns are *different* from the initial setup that causes us to learn the much more complex rules which specify the variations. It's the learning that we perceive as pleasurable.
Patternless music is completely different from anything you've encountered. It's not surprising that it gives some people pleasure - the brain is wired to notice and process uniqueness and encode it via differences, and give pleasure in doing so.
I liked the music myself (a lot), and noticed some similarity to the works of Ginastera; specifically, "Concerto for piano and orchestra" which I also like.
As the supreme court is fond of pointing out, it is up to the legislature [or in this case, the State Department] to pass laws which are clear and specific.
We've had posts before about ISPs being told to "ban PirateBay.com" but not PirateBay.org, or to ban a specific IP address in an effort to take a website offline. Both of these are ineffective for the stated goal.
The overall opinion is that companies should implement the court instructions to the letter. Anything else might provoke the wrath of the court. Even doing something *effective* in lieu of a court's ineffective instructions is a bad move and likely to provoke a contempt of court ruling.
So Blue Coat's software is used in Syria, so what? They have followed the law and that's that. We may find their actions less than ethical, but the dividing line between ethics seems to waver depending on who and where you are. The Syrian government probably views the software as a stabilizing influence, and something that protects the population.
Put your blame where it truly lies. Write your congresscritter if you feel strongly about it.
The UN estimates of world population now indicate an increase until around 2075 (9.2 billion), and then a decrease after that.
Birth rates in all developed nations are falling fast, many are under replacement rate already. The US population would be lower than the replacement rate right now if it weren't for immigration.
The problem with Malthus is not the math, it's the model. Anyone can pick assumptions and make a model, and from there make predictions. Mathus erred in assuming that things would not change. An exponential curve is indistinguishable from a bell curve at the long tail beginning, so the evidence seemed to support his prediction.
What's changing is the demographics. Once raised out of poverty, people naturally start having fewer children. There are a variety of proposed reasons for this, and the evidence is very strong.
The prediction now is that once everyone is reasonably above the poverty line (mostly Africa, with some contribution from SE Asia) population growth will reverse.
Interestingly enough, in 75 years time there may be the reverse problem - population *shrinkage*.
This is not a problem. We can all relax about this particular issue, and focus on solving the other issues, on some of which population is dependent.
For the budding psychopaths out there who want to "fit in" better with society, here's how to change your speech patterns.
1) Join Toastmasters along with someone you see frequently (a significant other, close friend, or coworker).
It's cheap, and they will teach you ways to improve your speech - how to recognize disfluencies, for instance.
2) Play a game with your partner where every time they hear you make a mistake, they say "ding!". That's all - just "ding!" every time they hear a problem.
(For what it's worth I've found that GF's are particularly good at noticing such flaws.)
It takes a week or two, but the constant feedback will eventually sink in and you'll be able to hold long conversations without saying "ah", "um", "you know", and so on.
3) Rhythm, meter, and pauses are more difficult. Find a newscaster whose vocal style you like and record one of their broadcasts.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with their point of view, only that you like their vocal variety. (You could choose Rush Limbaugh, for instance.) I chose Morley Safer.
Edit the broadcasts into individual sentences and rip these to a CD as individual tracks. While you are driving to work, play a sentence on infinite repeat. Recite the sentence along with the speaker over and over. Try to recite it exactly, mimicking the pauses and intonations.
You'll spend a few iterations just remembering the words. Once you know the words, your ear will start to pick out subtle emphasis and pauses used by the speaker. You'll start to learn when to pause (after prepositions, for instance), where to put emphasis to make a point, and so on.
When you get bored, switch to another sentence.
Don't do the mimicry thing more than a couple of weeks or you'll end up sounding *exactly* like the broadcaster. Switch to another one, mix it up a little.
As a side effect of all this, people will view your method of speech as more meaningful, you will be perceived as more reliable and confident, and people will give you greater respect.
In case anyone thinks that the US has good/solid infrastructure, remember this moment.
The AT&T network is so poor that it bogs down when a vendor comes out with a popular new phone.
Now let's see if you can actually make a call while in Manhattan.
I read once where this (reduced potency over time) is typical.
When an infectious agent jumps species, it's typically extremely virile and will easily kill the host. This puts selection pressure on the agent to be less fatal, so that the agent has more time to spread among the available hosts.
For example, the flu killed 20% of those infected in 1918, but today it's mostly an annoyance.
Probably the same thing here. A mutation results in a particularly virulent strain, which lessens in potency over time.
Try "Geiger Counter" and "CCD"
Radioactivity has a tendency to kick electrons around. If a particularly strong particle hits the CCD array, it will be registered on whichever pixel cell it hit. You can see this as a pixel going "white" for a brief moment on the video stream.
Put an alpha source next to a CCD array (which is otherwise light-tight) and you will get random white-pixel flashes. These are truly random, not the result of a PRNG.
For the record, this is illegal.
The NRC considers this a "grievous offense" (their words), and people have been raided and had all their playthings confiscated for playing around with smoke detector emitters.
So... don't tell anyone if you do this.
Find a birds nest somewhere on school grounds in the spring, mount a camera and put the live images up on the net. Allow students to watch as the eggs hatch and the chicks are reared.
This gets really *really* interesting if you can do this for a raptor nest, such as a hawk.
Web cams are generally sensitive to IR, so if you can cobble up an IR light source you can take images at night. Are there places on the grounds where critters come out at night (foxes, owls, skunks)? There's open source software to detect and automatically record movement from video feeds.
Come up with some interesting investigations that would interest the students.
Any old wells or pipes that stick up out of the ground? Can you lower a camera into one of these to see where it goes?
Webcams can be used for all sorts of data acquisition purposes, if you have some spare computers.
For instance, take a plastic egg-carton and grow 12 plants using different media (ex - a range of PH across the bays). Use a webcam to monitor the plants, and count the green pixels day-by-day to measure the relative growth rates.
Make a brush pile on school grounds and bury the web cam *within* the pile. Take an image 1/sec, and also monitor temperature. Throw out images which are the same as previous images. Use the data to watch how critters survive within brush piles, and how much insulation being in a brush pile affords.
Train a camera on the sky and take pictures over time. Count the white/blue ratio to monitor cloudiness/overcast.
Mount 36 of them in a ball, and then throw them up in the air!
This Wall Street protest is one of the most interesting phenomena that's happened in a long time.
We like to think that we know the general pulse and mood of society and that the outcomes are predictable, or at least reasonable.
If Apple comes out with the iPad, it may bomb or it may be popular - both outcomes seem to be likely given the current state of the world. If a cop is videotaped beating a suspect, it will likely go viral. If the president gives a speech, it will have little lasting importance.
The Wall Street protests are different because they are completely inexplicable. Masses of people don't protest without a reason, without a rallying point, or without a charismatic leader. There's always *something* that starts them off, that prompts people to take action. The recent London riots were precipitated by a cop shooting a civilian.
If these protests truly are just a manifestation of general popular mood, then the country could be in serious big trouble, for the following reasons:
1) If this is general popular mood, then the protests are emblematic of the mood of the *entire* population, and
2) These sorts of situations are fertile ground to grow new, charismatic leaders.
Not to Godwin the discussion or anything, but this sort of unrest has similarities to the environment that allowed Hitler to rise to power. Theoretically, potential charismatic leaders exist in our society but never become popular due to social circumstance. If the people are content, it's hard to get a following.
The protests are interesting because of all the unlikely things that have happened: it was unlikely that they would start, it was unlikely that they would grow, it was unlikely that they would spread to other cities, and it was unlikely that they would be sustained for so long.
So many unlikely outcomes are a clear indication that we can't predict the next outcome.
Hence, it's interesting.
generate a new random large number for handing off (via cut/paste, or whatever) to a vendor, which gives them a claim for x dollars from your account... once, or whatever schedule/limits you set.... and would only work for their account, nobody elses.
This already exists, it's called "ShopSafe". It's available for many credit cards including some Visa's.
The website creates a new credit card that links to your account, so that charges to this new card appear on your statement.
The new card has a limit which you choose, and an expiry date which you also choose (default: 2 months). Once a vendor charges to the card, no *other* vendor can levy further charges.
So for example, to purchase something online for $50, ask it to generate a new card for $70 (to cover postage and taxes and whatnot) with an expiry 2 months from now. Once the vendor charges the card, it's locked to that vendor and won't accept charges from any other.
I use it all the time for online purchases and haven't had a problem yet. Unfortunately, using one of these is against Paypal's TOS (according to them, verbally)(and yes, they will freeze your account for using one), so it won't work for eBay sales.
People on this thread keep pointing out that card users have no way to keep their "super secret" numbers safe, but this is one method that works quite well.
Search for "ShopSafe" on your card's web page to see if this is available for your card.
I'm quite fond of the Anime series "Ghost in the Shell".
The series describes a plausible future and discusses (and illustrates) the moral implications.
Totally fascinating stuff.
I agree that the moderation system is very good.
I have several opinions which are not mainstream here; for example, that most open source software is of poor quality.
When I articulate my views clearly and show illustrative examples, my comments get modded up. At the very least, it stimulates discussion and invites people to post counter arguments. Putting up examples puts the burden on them to counter the argument and also explain why the illustrative examples exist.
It makes for real discussion, rather than people just posting their position.
Look at other sites that just allow comments - it's mostly people saying "I feel this..." or "I think that...".
Having the moderation system forces people to be better commentators.
This is a good example of the prevailing flaw in scientific research.
You are saying, in effect, that this can't be right because it doesn't conform to your model.
That's fine, we use models all the time in science, but a model is only useful in predicting the experiment described by the model.
If you want to build something exactly described by the model, then the model will predict the outcome and your chances of success. If you want to ask interesting questions, then the model may inform your beliefs as to whether you will get interesting answers... but your model isn't more important than evidence. The model *never* trumps evidence.
Here's a man so sure of his results that he is willing to give us evidence. I agree completely that this looks a lot like frauds of bygone times, I don't personally think that he will be able to provide results, but I'm not so vain as to state he *won't* provide results.
Let's let him have his moment, and then judge the evidence. It's only a month, after all.
(Another good example is Burzynski. Everyone in that case is arguing the model, not the evidence. Don't explain *why* it doesn't work, talk about *whether* it doesn't work. Why can come later.)
This is about bringing jobs to California, not bringing jobs to America.
If a company moves from one state to another, does this make our economy somehow better?
Having states squabble and bicker and compete with each other for business does not help. It only takes up politician's time and adds bureaucracy and adminstration - effort that does not contribute to production.
Existing companies already have the employees they need to make their product. This is not true in all cases, but as a general rule it works quite well. Jobs come from new companies forming and from newish companies growing big.
We've done everything possible to stifle new business in this country[1][2], and this is just another card in that deck. Giving a break to an existing company creates a barrier for the creation of a new company which might compete. It makes the existing company weak and complacent.
If GE pays no taxes, it's hard to start a company making a competing product.
We could turn the recession around and have a vibrant economy very quickly if we could stop propping up stagnation, and focus on encouraging growth
[1] Innovation: Patent trolls, nuclear patent portfolios, submarine patents, court district shopping, DMCA, ACTA, losing tech to other countries
[2] Infrastructure: Rationed internet(data caps), net neutrality, spotty cell coverage, polluted water supply, inscrutable laws, discretionary enforcement, tax complexity, offshoring
Isn't there *something* that can be done about this?
We've got a fair number of layers on this site. Can't someone come up with an innovative chess-move style action that would hurt these guys?
Maybe getting all the sued companies to file a class-action suit against the router manufacturers, in order to bring big guns into the fight?
Maybe sue the troll for barratry or something? Some procedural complaint about the practice?
This is the sort of thing that encourages Lulzsec behaviour. What can we suggest that would be a better solution?
My opponent polymorphed himself [alter self] into an image of the [other] town's mayor, then went to the biggest orc camp he could find.
He killed their spiritual leader and raped the leader's woman in full view of the assembled horde, then gave a rather insulting speech about manhood, fighting capability, and followed it up with demands that they leave the area before his "town" came out and took them all into slavery.
Then he "flew" away.
A week or so later, just about the entire orc nation descended on the (unawares & unwarned) town. They killed the men, burned the buildings to the ground, and took the women and children as slaves.
The judge [of the bet] deemed that both towns had been destroyed, but the 2nd action caused more suffering.
Alas.
I once had an bet with another character to see who could perform the most evil act.
My character found a bunch of trolls and chopped them up into 1" cubes and froze them solid. He then walked all around town tossing a cube or two into all the alleyways, under porches, into the trash bins, and so on. A week later the town was gone.
Didn't win the bet, though...
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a free resource to exploit. The ISPs would like these companies to share in the burden they are placing on their networks.
That, my friend, is a detestable rewording of the issues intended to evoke sympathy from the masses.
Share the burden? Exploit resources for free? That's called framing. Was that your intent?
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers have paid for.
New companies see the consumers broadband connection as a resource the consumers will use to get goods and services.
People thinking about starting new companies see an opportunity to start new business using the consumers broadband connection to deliver goods and services.
People thinking about starting new companies can create innovative new products and services using the consumers broadband connection.
Let's all go back to the pre-iPhone model where the telcos were gatekeepers of phone apps. In those days you were lucky to get Tetris on a phone. It wasn't the vibrant ecology of business we now have, but at least no one was "exploiting" the user's "resource".
Grow some integrity. Get a job working for someone who doesn't pay you to lie.
I've been programming microcontrollers professionally for 30 years, and around 30 years ago I started making/using microcontrollers at home for hobby projects.
At that time I was using 68HC11 micros:
a) The 68HC11 is roughly equivalent to the arduino chip of today (ie - Atmega 168)
b) You could buy a 68HC11 dev board for $50, roughly equivalent to the Arduino
c) The programmer was $100
This is not a whole lot different from the Arduino of today, yet 68HC11 hobbyist development was rare.
The difference is in the software. At that time, you could get any number of chips made by several manufacturers. They almost gave away their development boards, because they wanted people to have familiarity with the units. They wanted people to recommend the micros to their employers, which might lead to a big sale.
The difference is in the software. You could get hardware for around $100, but the cheapest compiler you could get was $350 at the low end, topping out at $10,000. The assembler was free. You had to type assembly language into a text editor, use command-line tools to compile and download it, then debug it instruction-by-instruction.
The reason Arduino took off was not all because of the low price, it was because of the ease of use. Atmel gave out the IDE for free, and it was almost literally plug-and-play. You could get a "blink the LED" program up and running in under an hour, including installation of software. WinAVR (based on GCC) is a perfectly acceptable C compiler, also for free.
Atmel gave out the IDE for free, then someone noticed and came out with the Arduino. Bam! Instant market penetration.
That's why the Arduino became so popular: it's because Atmel took the trouble to make using/tinkering with the unit so easy. There was almost no learning curve associated with using the system - you could concentrate almost immediately on getting your work done.