'It is pretty easy to imagine a $400 to $1,000 retail price.' says the quote. Why do I find that absurd? He could simply have said "I have no clue how much it might have cost". That would have been a bit more honest, I think. Lets think about it for a second. Not only is this bracket very large, it also enclose most of the iPhone configuration sold on the market today. Looking back at the price of other similar devices at that time, I think 400$ is a laughable underestimation. Moreover if you had hopped to achieve a form factor similar than today's smart phone. I would have said more over 1000$, probably closer to 2000$.
I also have a hard timing finding how this could have fitted in with the product lines and philosophy of Microsoft at the beginning of the '90.
I'm not even convinced he was trying to be deceptive. Maybe the AC simply doesn't get it. Or stopped reading the reply half-way through, as he was satisfied with himself.
Regardless, the subtlety pointed out by AuMatar is very disappointingly very hard to understand by a large portion of the population. Yes, I know, citation needed, but I can only give my own experience and observation as reference. Every time I face this situation, I turn out highly disappointed - in what exactly I don't know, but i'm just sorry for something. Happens all the time.
Completely unrelated to oil, but while skimming over the report, figure on page 30 struck me as odd. Anyone doing such an extrapolation without providing a thorough basis justifying is doing something questionable.
On the graph showing grain demand, you see a fairly linear progression between 1960 and 1990 with a slight regression 1990 onwards. There seem to be a local increase in demand just before 2010, but it seems non significant considering earlier trend deviations. But suddenly, after 2010, the extrapolation shows a strong increase in the rate, contradicting a 20 year regression trend. Added to that local variations on the extrapolated data that can hardly be attributed to any model...
I'll restrain myself to extrapolate the credibility of the whole report based on this single figure though.
Exactly. For some reason, the Newton platform is completely shut out of the "tablet computer" discussion. At the time it was classified as a PDA - and still is regarded by most as a PDA today. Thing is, there was no "tablet computer" in 1994. This was totally new and had not classifications for it. The best marketing could find was to classify newtons as PDA.
In fact, the Newton was much more. The resemblance to the iPad are striking and the Newton OS clearly was the starting point for the iOS interface development. Those were in fact really tablet computers - of course with technology from the 90s - but nonetheless tablet computers. I find it absurd to ignore those devices in today's ridiculous lucubration about tablet prior art because they where not classified as such at the time of their release due to the lack of any other similar device.
I find interesting that someone claims he invented the tablet computer in the 90s.
Why do I find this interesting? I owned my first tablet computer in the 90s. Yep, that's right. Even funnier is that this tablet computer was from Apple computers - but this is completely irrelevant. Point is, development of tablet computers began much before the 90s in order to be released as commercial products in the 90s. And this guy predicted tablet computer around 1994... coincidentally the year when Apple Computer released its first tablet computer.
The day it was released I both wanted one and was convinced it could have a great future. I imagine thousands of possible use for such tablet computers. But I didn't invent the iPad. Or the Samsung Galaxy. Or what ever.
No. It is not like dusting off your 286. PPC architecture was available by Apple until 5 or 6 years ago. My main computer I use at home for browsing and stuff is a the first generation Intel-based power book. This computer servers its purpose perfectly and will probably do so for a year or two and I could have been so unlucky as to fall in the same situtation.
The 286, on the other hand, is a 30 year old architecture that has been phased out over 20 years ago, before the Power PC was introduced. So yeah. Nice troll (I applaud the one who modded you underrated).
Unlimited access to internet is much cheaper than university administrative fees for such things as, you know, internet connection.Your concept of "free" is quite distorted.
The article contains very little details on the actual effect of the treatment. It may only desensitize the body to the psychotropic effects, but leave analgesic effects unaffected. But that also is just speculative.
Even if it did reduce the overall effect of opioid drugs, there are alternative analgesics and anesthetics.
OP is correct. Although it may seem like act like a vaccine, it is not.
The term "vaccine" refers to something very specific, and that is a product based on viruses or bacterias (or part of) that are injected in other to boost (or train) the immune system to these particular micro organism. By definition, you cannot make a vaccine against a chemical agent like Opioids.
But I do understand why the term vaccine was used here... I honestly have no clue what the correct terminology would be. I thought about "serum", but that doesn't cut it either. Maybe something like desensitization agent... anyway, if there is a correct medical word for it, I doubt it would be proper for a vulgarization article like this one. OP is correct... but in the context for the article, I guess "vaccine" is an acceptable compromise.
In theory, such a quality review mechanism already exists. It's called peer review. But the system fell victim of policies like these and, although it worked at some point, is now totally useless. Lets face it, the marketing departments took over control of academic research.
This push for papers has nothing to do with science. It's nothing more than policies to generate publicity. Cheap publicity - and the pseudo impact scale of journals is a nice illustration of this. Why would a good paper published in a smaller, well aimed journal - thus reaching exactly the right community - be any less worth than a paper published in Nature or what ever other hyped journal? Science is not about impact. Marketing on the other hand is.
Although I agree that some people deserve the boot, such a policy - like most academic policies nowadays - only encourage production of large quantities of low-quality material. (That just a polite way of saying "huge piles of shit").
Going through published material is really depressing. Most of it is either republished stuff (à la "the same article few months ago : now with a new figure") or stuff that wouldn't even find its way into a textbooks due to lack of interest.
The groups I've been working with are on the top of our field. These groups published very little (maybe a paper or two per year, for the whole group), but always groundbreaking content or content of high interest for the community - and thus hold very high reputation in the community. I like it that way. Rather than wasting my time writing worthless papers (because writing a good paper takes time if you are not writing it with 3 keyboard keys - ctrl, c and v), I rather do actual work and publish it when it's mature enough.
Sadly, this view is not very common and I believe we get through with our way only because we are closer to engineering than to what people refer to as scientific research.
I've got a different definition of "shot down"... they managed to land the drone right next to the truck. How shut down is that? This is nothing more than marketing-oriented drama.
But it does raise some serious question on trespassing, surveillance, right to privacy, etc.
Given our current technology and potential near-future technology, what would a future space battlefield look like?
Anyway, reading most comments here, I think a lot of slashdot poster confuse 100 years with 1000 years - not that I blame them. After all, we should all fly around in our atomic powered hovering fords by now. So they said, back then.
Foreseeing the future is very difficult. It's easy to let its imagine run while. Just read this thread through. I find the best way to see clearly is to reduce speculation to a minimum and stick to what you know.
Moving around in space is nothing like flying around in the air or scratching around on the surface of the Earth. And in combat, regardless of its form, it's all about movement and positioning. The key always lays there from the most basic form of hand to hand combat to the most advanced stealth jet fighter combat.
If you are serious about getting an Idea about how a space battle would look like, I suggest the following. Get the Orbiter space flight simulator and try it out a little. Figure how you move around in space. Search around a little and do the tutorials.
My guess is that, like most people, you'll get bored after the first 2 days waiting to reach a target... you'll quickly (or rather very slowly and longingly) notice that space travel is slow and complex. When most people think of in-flight combat, they think about dogfight, with quick instant maneuvers to evade immediate danger or quickly engage a target. Space, its another business. Orbits are planned months ahead, years or even decades in advance for some satellite. Even on very short term missions, you do small precise maneuvers that will have noticeable impacts hours or days later.
The most accurate movie depiction of space combat is probably 2001: A Space Odyssey... sort of. There's just no combat, but it wouldn't feel any different.
The pharmacist and the doctor are not competitors in the world of the best advice. They are two professional, each having their field of expertise. They have to work together to give the best possible treatment to the patient.
If either sees questioning of some advice as negative, then there is a fundamental problem - and this is where reform needs to start. Of course, working together does imply taking the time to talk to each other when problem arise.
I lived most of my life in Canada, and if my pharmacist wasn't certain about some strange posology on the prescription or spotted a possible interaction, he didn't unilaterally decided otherwise. He called and consulted with his colleague, the doctor, who wrote the prescription. This is how it should be done. And it's not just in Canada. Now I live in Germany, a country that has a radically different medical system structure. The same way, if a problem arise with a prescription, the pharmacist will contact the practician to discuss the issue and identify proper alternatives.
Maybe I was just lucky always to have good pharmacists?! But this is pretty much how I picture how this system should work. Of course, the information about other drugs you are taking won't come automatically to the pharmacist. Without a centralized tracking system, he'll only know what you tell him.
That's exactly the kind of mistake that leads to such high mortality figures. I couldn't believe it as i read the summary and on. I never would have thought PAE related mortality would be so high in the US.
But even the best system can't compensate for human incompetence and laziness. In your case, you either got someone on the line who had no clue and too lazy to either refer you to someone who had one or check it up or to someone really incompetent. Even the best electronic tracking system wouldn't have helped in your case. At least not for drugs sold over the counter. For prescription drugs, a centralized system tracking your prescriptions would rise a flag at the pharmacist preparing the prescription, even if you get wrong advise from other medical professionals along the line.
Anyone, we often tend to forget that doctors are not experts in medication. The only know so much. Pharmacist and pharmacologist are the reference in this field... they are the one we should ask question regarding medical interaction.
It depends which antibiotics. Some are very selective, others "wideband" so to speak. Many will have absolutely no effect on the intestinal microbiota. Others will completely kill it off, make the need of active yogourt to repolulate it.
(but INAMD... just what I understood through experience).
Is it really that misguided? I wanted to mod you down, but on second thought your comment really is insightful... I just don't agree with it.
If it really bothers the poster that much, simply go without the toy.
What kind of logic is that? That goes in the same bucket as "If you don't like how it is, make it yourself"... It's also like saying if you are bothered by how animals are handled by *some* producers, why don't you become vegetarian. With food, just like with electronics devices, there are ways to consume while reducing your negative footprint. With food, it gets always easier to do so - no so much with electronics.
...simply go without the toy.
Toys, really? I don't know how you live or what you do for a living, but there is no way I could work or live in 2012 without consuming electronic products.
But it the end, I think what will happen here is the same thing as with what happens when people try to consume animals products only coming from animals treated in the best conditions... most are not ready to pay the price.
Slashdot Mirror
'It is pretty easy to imagine a $400 to $1,000 retail price.' says the quote. Why do I find that absurd? He could simply have said "I have no clue how much it might have cost". That would have been a bit more honest, I think. Lets think about it for a second. Not only is this bracket very large, it also enclose most of the iPhone configuration sold on the market today. Looking back at the price of other similar devices at that time, I think 400$ is a laughable underestimation. Moreover if you had hopped to achieve a form factor similar than today's smart phone. I would have said more over 1000$, probably closer to 2000$.
I also have a hard timing finding how this could have fitted in with the product lines and philosophy of Microsoft at the beginning of the '90.
... how do they expect this to work !? People will simply buy storage in other EU countries. But I doubt anyway that such a farce could ever pass.
I'm not even convinced he was trying to be deceptive. Maybe the AC simply doesn't get it. Or stopped reading the reply half-way through, as he was satisfied with himself.
Regardless, the subtlety pointed out by AuMatar is very disappointingly very hard to understand by a large portion of the population. Yes, I know, citation needed, but I can only give my own experience and observation as reference. Every time I face this situation, I turn out highly disappointed - in what exactly I don't know, but i'm just sorry for something. Happens all the time.
Completely unrelated to oil, but while skimming over the report, figure on page 30 struck me as odd. Anyone doing such an extrapolation without providing a thorough basis justifying is doing something questionable.
On the graph showing grain demand, you see a fairly linear progression between 1960 and 1990 with a slight regression 1990 onwards. There seem to be a local increase in demand just before 2010, but it seems non significant considering earlier trend deviations. But suddenly, after 2010, the extrapolation shows a strong increase in the rate, contradicting a 20 year regression trend. Added to that local variations on the extrapolated data that can hardly be attributed to any model...
I'll restrain myself to extrapolate the credibility of the whole report based on this single figure though.
I hope for your sake that you're not living in Arizona.
Exactly. For some reason, the Newton platform is completely shut out of the "tablet computer" discussion. At the time it was classified as a PDA - and still is regarded by most as a PDA today. Thing is, there was no "tablet computer" in 1994. This was totally new and had not classifications for it. The best marketing could find was to classify newtons as PDA.
In fact, the Newton was much more. The resemblance to the iPad are striking and the Newton OS clearly was the starting point for the iOS interface development. Those were in fact really tablet computers - of course with technology from the 90s - but nonetheless tablet computers. I find it absurd to ignore those devices in today's ridiculous lucubration about tablet prior art because they where not classified as such at the time of their release due to the lack of any other similar device.
I find interesting that someone claims he invented the tablet computer in the 90s.
Why do I find this interesting? I owned my first tablet computer in the 90s. Yep, that's right. Even funnier is that this tablet computer was from Apple computers - but this is completely irrelevant. Point is, development of tablet computers began much before the 90s in order to be released as commercial products in the 90s. And this guy predicted tablet computer around 1994... coincidentally the year when Apple Computer released its first tablet computer.
The day it was released I both wanted one and was convinced it could have a great future. I imagine thousands of possible use for such tablet computers. But I didn't invent the iPad. Or the Samsung Galaxy. Or what ever.
Now, all we need is a solar cell with 100% efficiency and we're in business.
No. It is not like dusting off your 286. PPC architecture was available by Apple until 5 or 6 years ago. My main computer I use at home for browsing and stuff is a the first generation Intel-based power book. This computer servers its purpose perfectly and will probably do so for a year or two and I could have been so unlucky as to fall in the same situtation.
The 286, on the other hand, is a 30 year old architecture that has been phased out over 20 years ago, before the Power PC was introduced. So yeah. Nice troll (I applaud the one who modded you underrated).
I sea what you did their.
Unlimited access to internet is much cheaper than university administrative fees for such things as, you know, internet connection.Your concept of "free" is quite distorted.
The article contains very little details on the actual effect of the treatment. It may only desensitize the body to the psychotropic effects, but leave analgesic effects unaffected. But that also is just speculative.
Even if it did reduce the overall effect of opioid drugs, there are alternative analgesics and anesthetics.
OP is correct. Although it may seem like act like a vaccine, it is not.
The term "vaccine" refers to something very specific, and that is a product based on viruses or bacterias (or part of) that are injected in other to boost (or train) the immune system to these particular micro organism. By definition, you cannot make a vaccine against a chemical agent like Opioids.
But I do understand why the term vaccine was used here... I honestly have no clue what the correct terminology would be. I thought about "serum", but that doesn't cut it either. Maybe something like desensitization agent... anyway, if there is a correct medical word for it, I doubt it would be proper for a vulgarization article like this one. OP is correct... but in the context for the article, I guess "vaccine" is an acceptable compromise.
In theory, such a quality review mechanism already exists. It's called peer review. But the system fell victim of policies like these and, although it worked at some point, is now totally useless. Lets face it, the marketing departments took over control of academic research.
This push for papers has nothing to do with science. It's nothing more than policies to generate publicity. Cheap publicity - and the pseudo impact scale of journals is a nice illustration of this. Why would a good paper published in a smaller, well aimed journal - thus reaching exactly the right community - be any less worth than a paper published in Nature or what ever other hyped journal? Science is not about impact. Marketing on the other hand is.
Although I agree that some people deserve the boot, such a policy - like most academic policies nowadays - only encourage production of large quantities of low-quality material. (That just a polite way of saying "huge piles of shit").
Going through published material is really depressing. Most of it is either republished stuff (à la "the same article few months ago : now with a new figure") or stuff that wouldn't even find its way into a textbooks due to lack of interest.
The groups I've been working with are on the top of our field. These groups published very little (maybe a paper or two per year, for the whole group), but always groundbreaking content or content of high interest for the community - and thus hold very high reputation in the community. I like it that way. Rather than wasting my time writing worthless papers (because writing a good paper takes time if you are not writing it with 3 keyboard keys - ctrl, c and v), I rather do actual work and publish it when it's mature enough.
Sadly, this view is not very common and I believe we get through with our way only because we are closer to engineering than to what people refer to as scientific research.
That video doesn't show anything clearly... or do you have another video to present?
Yes, you can presume the "chopper" is made of a metal of some sort.... ... or you can RTFA. But presuming is much more fun, isn't it?
I've got a different definition of "shot down"... they managed to land the drone right next to the truck. How shut down is that? This is nothing more than marketing-oriented drama.
But it does raise some serious question on trespassing, surveillance, right to privacy, etc.
Let me quote TFA/TFS :
Given our current technology and potential near-future technology, what would a future space battlefield look like?
Anyway, reading most comments here, I think a lot of slashdot poster confuse 100 years with 1000 years - not that I blame them. After all, we should all fly around in our atomic powered hovering fords by now. So they said, back then.
Foreseeing the future is very difficult. It's easy to let its imagine run while. Just read this thread through.
I find the best way to see clearly is to reduce speculation to a minimum and stick to what you know.
Moving around in space is nothing like flying around in the air or scratching around on the surface of the Earth. And in combat, regardless of its form, it's all about movement and positioning. The key always lays there from the most basic form of hand to hand combat to the most advanced stealth jet fighter combat.
If you are serious about getting an Idea about how a space battle would look like, I suggest the following. Get the Orbiter space flight simulator and try it out a little. Figure how you move around in space. Search around a little and do the tutorials.
My guess is that, like most people, you'll get bored after the first 2 days waiting to reach a target... you'll quickly (or rather very slowly and longingly) notice that space travel is slow and complex. When most people think of in-flight combat, they think about dogfight, with quick instant maneuvers to evade immediate danger or quickly engage a target. Space, its another business. Orbits are planned months ahead, years or even decades in advance for some satellite. Even on very short term missions, you do small precise maneuvers that will have noticeable impacts hours or days later.
The most accurate movie depiction of space combat is probably 2001: A Space Odyssey... sort of. There's just no combat, but it wouldn't feel any different.
The pharmacist and the doctor are not competitors in the world of the best advice. They are two professional, each having their field of expertise. They have to work together to give the best possible treatment to the patient.
If either sees questioning of some advice as negative, then there is a fundamental problem - and this is where reform needs to start. Of course, working together does imply taking the time to talk to each other when problem arise.
I lived most of my life in Canada, and if my pharmacist wasn't certain about some strange posology on the prescription or spotted a possible interaction, he didn't unilaterally decided otherwise. He called and consulted with his colleague, the doctor, who wrote the prescription. This is how it should be done. And it's not just in Canada. Now I live in Germany, a country that has a radically different medical system structure. The same way, if a problem arise with a prescription, the pharmacist will contact the practician to discuss the issue and identify proper alternatives.
Maybe I was just lucky always to have good pharmacists?! But this is pretty much how I picture how this system should work. Of course, the information about other drugs you are taking won't come automatically to the pharmacist. Without a centralized tracking system, he'll only know what you tell him.
That's exactly the kind of mistake that leads to such high mortality figures. I couldn't believe it as i read the summary and on. I never would have thought PAE related mortality would be so high in the US.
But even the best system can't compensate for human incompetence and laziness. In your case, you either got someone on the line who had no clue and too lazy to either refer you to someone who had one or check it up or to someone really incompetent. Even the best electronic tracking system wouldn't have helped in your case. At least not for drugs sold over the counter. For prescription drugs, a centralized system tracking your prescriptions would rise a flag at the pharmacist preparing the prescription, even if you get wrong advise from other medical professionals along the line.
Anyone, we often tend to forget that doctors are not experts in medication. The only know so much. Pharmacist and pharmacologist are the reference in this field... they are the one we should ask question regarding medical interaction.
It depends which antibiotics. Some are very selective, others "wideband" so to speak. Many will have absolutely no effect on the intestinal microbiota. Others will completely kill it off, make the need of active yogourt to repolulate it.
(but INAMD... just what I understood through experience).
...God plays with the same modus operandi than most corporations built to his image; It simply planned obsolescence.
Is it really that misguided? I wanted to mod you down, but on second thought your comment really is insightful... I just don't agree with it.
If it really bothers the poster that much, simply go without the toy.
What kind of logic is that? That goes in the same bucket as "If you don't like how it is, make it yourself"... It's also like saying if you are bothered by how animals are handled by *some* producers, why don't you become vegetarian.
With food, just like with electronics devices, there are ways to consume while reducing your negative footprint. With food, it gets always easier to do so - no so much with electronics.
...simply go without the toy.
Toys, really? I don't know how you live or what you do for a living, but there is no way I could work or live in 2012 without consuming electronic products.
But it the end, I think what will happen here is the same thing as with what happens when people try to consume animals products only coming from animals treated in the best conditions... most are not ready to pay the price.