What are the operators of these machines called technically? Shamans?
Technologists, actually. It's the ones who READ the tea lea...err, brain scans who are the shamans, not the ones who do them. Beware of radiologists with bones through their noses.
This test is far from cheap and in fact consumes limited resources. In some countries there are waiting lists for MRIs.
Resources that could become abundant at the snap of a health bureaucrat's fingers (keeping in mind it takes about 5-10 years and 16 forms to get a health bureaucrat to snap his fingers). Wouldn't help with the expense, though.
Why, it becomes SOCIETY again. Way back before towns had 29 million people in them and mobility wasn't hyperamplified by oil and 99% of us interacted with the same few hundred folks every day of your life, people knew of the stupid shit you did when you were a kid and repeated it at your funeral.
There's a critical difference between the small town where everyone knows the stupid things you did, and an entire world where the same is true. And you've hit it: Interaction. Sure, the foreman at the local factory probably knows young Bob Jones (who is applying for a job) ran drunk and naked through the center of town 5 years ago; it was the talk of the town for a week. But he also knows that aside from that, Bob's a pretty good guy, because even if he hasn't actually talked much to Bob, he's talked with plenty of people who have.
In a world where everyone knows everything, the faceless HR guy at the factory knows only what Bob Jones told him (which he likely doesn't believe), and what popped up on a search -- which was that 5 years ago Jones went streaking through the center of his town and got arrested for public indecency and public drunkenness. He doesn't know Bob, he doesn't know many people who know Bob, so to him, Bob's character is defined by his errors.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll pretend we're all having a civil dialogue here... that was a rather unkind comment, don't you think?
When someone uses their personal experience to bolster their point, they make that experience subject to question. If they don't like that, they're attempting to use their opponent's politeness to shield their claims from question, which is a tactic I don't care to respect.
Unfortunately, the absolute best diagnosis for ADD is to medicate, and see if the patient responds well to the medication. Scary, but true - which is probably why there are so many misdiagnoses.
The same is true for many so-called mental illnesses. The problem with that sort of diagnosis is that just because the medication reduces the symptoms does not mean there was a problem in the first place. Sure, you can drug a rambunctious kid into docility, but that doesn't mean you've treated his ADHD.
There used to be a taboo against diagnosing kids under the age of 18 because so much of being a kid could be attributed to any number of DSM-IV illnesses (such as ADHD/ADD and bi-polar disorder, to name a few).
Don't forget one of my favorites which can _only_ be diagnosed in those under 18 -- "Oppositional Defiant Disorder". Which is exactly what it sounds like.
Our 5yr old son can be behaving perfectly well (no discipline needed) yet still generally annoying the crap out of us (to be perfectly honest) when he's completely off meds.
Comes with the territory. What, you didn't know parenting was a way-more-than-full-time job?
It is not clear from TFA whether the histogram displayed there was drawn from the sample of experimentally measured _maximum_ speeds or just the "daily usage" speeds.
The "actual speeds" are averages. The "advertised speeds" were based on maximums. TFA isn't clear, but the study it references goes into detail. There does not appear to be a chart detailing the actual maximums versus the nominal maximums derived from rounding the maximums up to the nearest tier.
Any properly formed web-page is already accessible, it's part of the design of HTML. No sympathy for the legions of incompetent "web designers" that flood the web with defective crap, sorry.
If you're referring to simple pages where all the information is conveyed as simple text, you're right. However, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to web pages which may have things like videos, animation, pictures, perhaps even interactive content. If the requirement is to reduce everything to text/html with no images which defy textual description in ALT tags, that's already a conflict between accessibility and free speech.
Require that all forms of public expression be accessible to the blind, deaf, and otherwise impaired, and you raise the cost of entry of doing such to the point that most people won't find it practical any more. How many youtube videos would disappear if their creator had to caption them? How many web pages would go away if they had to be accessible to the blind?
There's two things happening. 1. The RIAA essentially wants to overturn radio's copyright exemption on payment of performance rights to labels &/or artists
2. National Association of Broadcasters )NAB) is saying they will pay the RIAA $100M/year if the new law mandates FM tuners in all mobile devices.
So basically the NAB is offering to buy a law using the RIAA as broker? I have to admit, that's a new one on me.
because *IAA has bullied the s* out of the FM stations & regulators, their royalties from the FM transmissions are on par with the ludicrous %s they steal from their artists.
Though they're trying to change this, the RIAA doesn't get royalties from FM stations. In fact, it's likely they're still paying them to play, though that's illegal.
True, they are in the point of USA, but only since a movie in the freedom fighter's, uh sorry, I meant terrorist's point of view wouldn't make it pas inception stage with the studios because BS backlash like this.
"All's Quiet on the Western Front" is the only one I can think of off the top of my head -- a 1930 film (based on a German novel) showing WWI from a German soldier's perspective.
Unless you count "Star Wars". I mean, clearly "Emperor Palpatine" is a rather thinly disguised Dick Cheney, and Tattoine is Afghanistan (Aldebaran, which we never see, is doubtless Iraq). That George Lucas, he was a real prophetic genius in those days.
Childs undoubtedly waived his right to a speedy trial, like many, many criminal defendants do (and like Kevin Mitnick did, on multiple occasions, all the while dishonestly claiming that he was being denied his right to a speedy trial).
Game's rigged. If you don't waive your right to a speedy trial, the prosecution will ensure you don't get the information you need to defend yourself until it's too late.
It seems that we have moved from a legal system that would prefer letting a guilty man go free rather than imprisoning an innocent to one where we would gladly imprison 10 people, despite 9 of them being innocent to catch a single guilty.
No, we've moved to a legal system which would gladly imprison 10 innocents, despite no crime having been committed at all.
If they were "reputable" would they be burning people with "lifetime" warranties?
Yes.
Know who you're buying from, people. A Lifetime warranty from the tech company could be A: Your lifetime, B: The lifetime of the tech company, or C: The lifetime of the technology.
Nope; there's a winner-take-all clause. If you can demonstrate that your mark is famous (and the Geek Squad mark might be), you can control it in all markets. It's a horrible law (like much of copyright, trademark, and patent law), but it's there.
Private servers do not NEED you to buy a copy of the game. You can just download the client from the Blizzard website without paying anything (since you are supposed to also buy an account for WoW, and the client is useless without an account) and then use that client to play on a private server. So the "I already paid for the game, I can play on whatever server I want" excuse does not work.
The "I already received a copy of the game from the legitimate copyright holder" "excuse" still applies, however.
However, in practice Blizzard won this one when the EFF surrendered in Blizzard v. bnetd.
"Google certainly doesn't fit the bill--after its original search engine and ad platform, it hasn't invented anything earth shattering." Playing down the accomplishments of large, established companies doesn't mean they're not innovative, but it does seem to indicate bias by the author.
Exactly. I'm biased myself, as I work for one of those large, established companies. Google didn't invent search, online maps, or online ads. But Google's offerings in those areas kick the butts of the older stuff the way the iPod, iTunes, and iPad do in their areas; if one is innovation the other is too. But then, Wadhwa being an idiot is nothing new.
I'll certainly agree that Microsoft doesn't innovate. IBM does, but not in the consumer product area (does copper interconnect ring a bell? How about supercomputers... I seem to recall IBM occasionally getting ahead in that game of leapfrog.) Cisco... I actually don't know, but again it wouldn't be consumer products... if they made a really innovative new router which switched 100 times as much data for the same price, who would know except the relatively few people who run high bandwidth switching points?
Slashdot Mirror
Technologists, actually. It's the ones who READ the tea lea...err, brain scans who are the shamans, not the ones who do them. Beware of radiologists with bones through their noses.
Resources that could become abundant at the snap of a health bureaucrat's fingers (keeping in mind it takes about 5-10 years and 16 forms to get a health bureaucrat to snap his fingers). Wouldn't help with the expense, though.
There's a critical difference between the small town where everyone knows the stupid things you did, and an entire world where the same is true. And you've hit it: Interaction. Sure, the foreman at the local factory probably knows young Bob Jones (who is applying for a job) ran drunk and naked through the center of town 5 years ago; it was the talk of the town for a week. But he also knows that aside from that, Bob's a pretty good guy, because even if he hasn't actually talked much to Bob, he's talked with plenty of people who have.
In a world where everyone knows everything, the faceless HR guy at the factory knows only what Bob Jones told him (which he likely doesn't believe), and what popped up on a search -- which was that 5 years ago Jones went streaking through the center of his town and got arrested for public indecency and public drunkenness. He doesn't know Bob, he doesn't know many people who know Bob, so to him, Bob's character is defined by his errors.
When someone uses their personal experience to bolster their point, they make that experience subject to question. If they don't like that, they're attempting to use their opponent's politeness to shield their claims from question, which is a tactic I don't care to respect.
So do recreational pharmaceuticals... doesn't mean they're a treatment for a disorder.
The same is true for many so-called mental illnesses. The problem with that sort of diagnosis is that just because the medication reduces the symptoms does not mean there was a problem in the first place. Sure, you can drug a rambunctious kid into docility, but that doesn't mean you've treated his ADHD.
Don't forget one of my favorites which can _only_ be diagnosed in those under 18 -- "Oppositional Defiant Disorder". Which is exactly what it sounds like.
Comes with the territory. What, you didn't know parenting was a way-more-than-full-time job?
The "actual speeds" are averages. The "advertised speeds" were based on maximums. TFA isn't clear, but the study it references goes into detail. There does not appear to be a chart detailing the actual maximums versus the nominal maximums derived from rounding the maximums up to the nearest tier.
Don't forget to retard the shit out of the timing to handle the reduced octane.
If you're referring to simple pages where all the information is conveyed as simple text, you're right. However, that's not what I'm referring to. I'm referring to web pages which may have things like videos, animation, pictures, perhaps even interactive content. If the requirement is to reduce everything to text/html with no images which defy textual description in ALT tags, that's already a conflict between accessibility and free speech.
Require that all forms of public expression be accessible to the blind, deaf, and otherwise impaired, and you raise the cost of entry of doing such to the point that most people won't find it practical any more. How many youtube videos would disappear if their creator had to caption them? How many web pages would go away if they had to be accessible to the blind?
So basically the NAB is offering to buy a law using the RIAA as broker? I have to admit, that's a new one on me.
Though they're trying to change this, the RIAA doesn't get royalties from FM stations. In fact, it's likely they're still paying them to play, though that's illegal.
If hypocrisy wasn't an option, the government couldn't do much at all. I leave it to you to decide whether this would be a good or a bad thing.
Your wait is over:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1672.asp
"All's Quiet on the Western Front" is the only one I can think of off the top of my head -- a 1930 film (based on a German novel) showing WWI from a German soldier's perspective.
Unless you count "Star Wars". I mean, clearly "Emperor Palpatine" is a rather thinly disguised Dick Cheney, and Tattoine is Afghanistan (Aldebaran, which we never see, is doubtless Iraq). That George Lucas, he was a real prophetic genius in those days.
...he'd be playing war games (not necessarily on a computer) where he played the side of the Taliban.
Game's rigged. If you don't waive your right to a speedy trial, the prosecution will ensure you don't get the information you need to defend yourself until it's too late.
No, we've moved to a legal system which would gladly imprison 10 innocents, despite no crime having been committed at all.
Normally it means the lifetime of the product. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-life_(product)
Nope; there's a winner-take-all clause. If you can demonstrate that your mark is famous (and the Geek Squad mark might be), you can control it in all markets. It's a horrible law (like much of copyright, trademark, and patent law), but it's there.
The "I already received a copy of the game from the legitimate copyright holder" "excuse" still applies, however.
However, in practice Blizzard won this one when the EFF surrendered in Blizzard v. bnetd.
Eh, the lurkers with mod points agree with me.
Exactly. I'm biased myself, as I work for one of those large, established companies. Google didn't invent search, online maps, or online ads. But Google's offerings in those areas kick the butts of the older stuff the way the iPod, iTunes, and iPad do in their areas; if one is innovation the other is too. But then, Wadhwa being an idiot is nothing new.
I'll certainly agree that Microsoft doesn't innovate. IBM does, but not in the consumer product area (does copper interconnect ring a bell? How about supercomputers... I seem to recall IBM occasionally getting ahead in that game of leapfrog.) Cisco... I actually don't know, but again it wouldn't be consumer products... if they made a really innovative new router which switched 100 times as much data for the same price, who would know except the relatively few people who run high bandwidth switching points?