Yes, there is an objective test. It uses a device that is a cylinder that can roll. It has pictures on it. You roll it and the patient's eyes will track the motion if he can see it.
Interestingly enough, this is a good way to see if someone is faking vision loss. Because if you see the motion you can't help but to track the motion.
The current issue of Scientific American talks about it. The cover mentions gene doping in atheletes. The article itself talks about scientists working on myostatin blocking therapies that might be useful for the elderly and people with MD.
The article says that published proofs generally skip steps. I'd bet the humans make more mistakes than the computer.
Actually, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem origanally had a mistake which was fixed later.
Actually I'll just put the abstract below. If you want to read their paper, code, and other goodies, click here
High-speed networks with large delays present a unique environment where TCP may have a problem utilizing the full bandwidth. Several congestion control proposals have been suggested to remedy this problem. In these protocols, mainly two properties have been considered important: TCP friendliness and bandwidth scalability. That is, a protocol should not take away too much bandwidth from TCP while fully utilizing the full bandwidth of high-speed networks. We presents another important constraint, namely, RTT (round trip time) unfairness where competing flows with different RTTs may consume vastly unfair bandwidth shares. Existing schemes have a severe RTT unfairness problem because the window increase rate gets larger as window grows - ironically the very reason that makes them more scalable. The problem occurs distinctly with drop tail routers where packet loss can be highly synchronized.
Bic-TCP is a new protocol that ensures a linear RTT fairness under large windows while offering both scalability and bounded TCP-friendliness. The protocol combines two schemes called additive increase and binary search increase. When the congestion window is large, additive increase with a large increment ensures linear RTT fairness as well as good scalability. Under small congestion windows, binary search increase is designed to provide TCP friendliness.
and the telecom companies will lobby against such a law. Remember that the telecommications industry is even bigger than the recording industry.
Interesting
on
AOL's $299 PC
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They give you the fine print in gif form just to make sure it's difficult for you to read the text. The resolution isn't really fine enough for the text to be legible at any magnification, but it appears that the finance rate is 23.9% or 25.9%
Turn your fat into muscle through weight lifting. By far, the best and most important lift is the squat. You will get strong if and only if you can squat a lot of weight.
Squats cause your body to produce more growth hormone than any other exercise. Growth hormone supresses fat and promotes muscle. When you become more muscular your muscles will consume calories and ultimately get rid of fat.
Forget atkins, it sucks and you must stick with a weight control program for life. Right now, Americans purchase about half as much fruit as the USDA says they should be eating. So eat the right kinds of carbs and burn them off with squats.
When I was in college, I had literally nothing they could take from me except for a waterbed and a shitty 486.
Well, they can garnish 15% of all your future earnings. How does that sound? I don't think fines for illegal acts are dischargable in bankruptcies either.
It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs. So people in the US just have to stop uploading. In Canada it is legal to upload copyrighted songs! So everything the RIAA is doing is for naught as our neighbors to the north can provide us with all the music we need and they can't do damn thing about it.
This is somewhat interesting. But the atheletes don't need exotic new technologies when they can easily get away with using performance enhancing drugs. The two most prominent performance enchancing drugs which can't be tested for are EPO and HGH. Here's a Scientific American article.
As this article states, the cheaters are way ahead of the drug testers. Notice that they have a quote from the anonymous Olympic Committeeman. "If this were a basketball game, we'd be behind about 98 to 2." I have even read that it is widely believed that rich countries do better in the Olympics primarily because they can afford better masking technologies.
Re:Because conservatives are wrong about most thin
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 1
"Science" rarely does, as it is not a policy matter
But scientific data supports liberals more than conservatives.
At this time, the conservatives tend to hold more to the real science on global warming
I hope you're kidding. Scientists constiently say that global warming is real. Did you read the linked article? Scientists who say global wariming is real and is a problem literally outnumber the naysayers by more than one thousand to one.
Birh control is not a science controversy. It is a political one. You may lead the linked article to see how conservatives distort the issue.
Because conservatives are wrong about most things
on
Politicizing Science
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Science finds objectives truths. Since science constiently comes out against conservatives on many issues, they tend to endorse a kind of sophism in which everything is debatable.
They rely on people having factually incorrect data on global warming, birth control, etc. A Scientific worldview and a conservate worldview are as incompatable today as they were in the days of Galieo and Darwin.
He increased supply and this will worry people and cause them to sell too.
Like it or not, Microsoft is doing fine. They have good profits for the forseeable future. His claim that he just wants to diversify is completely plausible. I'm sure his portfolio is disproportionatelyMicrosoft.
Oregon's House Bill HB-2892, if passed into law, is projected to save the Oregon taxpayer upwards of 20-30 million in savings annually.
Translation: Software companies are going to lose money if it passes and will lobby like hell against it. It would be a horrible precendent for the software companies if this passes.
Remember: If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
Should people be allowed to geneticly engineer or screen their children? Should they be allowed to make sick children healthy? Should they be allowed to make healthy children super children? If yes, what will happen to people whose parents didn't have the money to make their children superhuman?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is an objective test. It uses a device that is a cylinder that can roll. It has pictures on it. You roll it and the patient's eyes will track the motion if he can see it. Interestingly enough, this is a good way to see if someone is faking vision loss. Because if you see the motion you can't help but to track the motion.
The current issue of Scientific American talks about it. The cover mentions gene doping in atheletes. The article itself talks about scientists working on myostatin blocking therapies that might be useful for the elderly and people with MD.
The article says that published proofs generally skip steps. I'd bet the humans make more mistakes than the computer. Actually, Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem origanally had a mistake which was fixed later.
I might have to copy it one day.
High-speed networks with large delays present a unique environment where TCP may have a problem utilizing the full bandwidth. Several congestion control proposals have been suggested to remedy this problem. In these protocols, mainly two properties have been considered important: TCP friendliness and bandwidth scalability. That is, a protocol should not take away too much bandwidth from TCP while fully utilizing the full bandwidth of high-speed networks. We presents another important constraint, namely, RTT (round trip time) unfairness where competing flows with different RTTs may consume vastly unfair bandwidth shares. Existing schemes have a severe RTT unfairness problem because the window increase rate gets larger as window grows - ironically the very reason that makes them more scalable. The problem occurs distinctly with drop tail routers where packet loss can be highly synchronized. Bic-TCP is a new protocol that ensures a linear RTT fairness under large windows while offering both scalability and bounded TCP-friendliness. The protocol combines two schemes called additive increase and binary search increase. When the congestion window is large, additive increase with a large increment ensures linear RTT fairness as well as good scalability. Under small congestion windows, binary search increase is designed to provide TCP friendliness.
and the telecom companies will lobby against such a law. Remember that the telecommications industry is even bigger than the recording industry.
They give you the fine print in gif form just to make sure it's difficult for you to read the text. The resolution isn't really fine enough for the text to be legible at any magnification, but it appears that the finance rate is 23.9% or 25.9%
Very carefully.
Squats cause your body to produce more growth hormone than any other exercise. Growth hormone supresses fat and promotes muscle. When you become more muscular your muscles will consume calories and ultimately get rid of fat.
Forget atkins, it sucks and you must stick with a weight control program for life. Right now, Americans purchase about half as much fruit as the USDA says they should be eating. So eat the right kinds of carbs and burn them off with squats.
Uploading is copying and is illegal. Downloading isn't illegal. It's funny but that's how the law works.
Well, they can garnish 15% of all your future earnings. How does that sound? I don't think fines for illegal acts are dischargable in bankruptcies either.
It is only illegal to upload copyrighted songs. So people in the US just have to stop uploading. In Canada it is legal to upload copyrighted songs! So everything the RIAA is doing is for naught as our neighbors to the north can provide us with all the music we need and they can't do damn thing about it.
As this article states, the cheaters are way ahead of the drug testers. Notice that they have a quote from the anonymous Olympic Committeeman. "If this were a basketball game, we'd be behind about 98 to 2." I have even read that it is widely believed that rich countries do better in the Olympics primarily because they can afford better masking technologies.
And why not an open source programmer?
But scientific data supports liberals more than conservatives.
At this time, the conservatives tend to hold more to the real science on global warming
I hope you're kidding. Scientists constiently say that global warming is real. Did you read the linked article? Scientists who say global wariming is real and is a problem literally outnumber the naysayers by more than one thousand to one.
Birh control is not a science controversy. It is a political one. You may lead the linked article to see how conservatives distort the issue.
They rely on people having factually incorrect data on global warming, birth control, etc. A Scientific worldview and a conservate worldview are as incompatable today as they were in the days of Galieo and Darwin.
Since they are so interested in intellectual property, they must be overjoyed that the courts are protecting IP so zealously
Like it or not, Microsoft is doing fine. They have good profits for the forseeable future. His claim that he just wants to diversify is completely plausible. I'm sure his portfolio is disproportionatelyMicrosoft.
Translation: Software companies are going to lose money if it passes and will lobby like hell against it. It would be a horrible precendent for the software companies if this passes.
Remember: If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is.
That site doesn't seem to work.
Is it right to build nuclear weapons?
Is it right for psychologists to use their advanced knowledge to assist in the creation of advertisements aimed at children?
Should people be allowed to geneticly engineer or screen their children? Should they be allowed to make sick children healthy? Should they be allowed to make healthy children super children? If yes, what will happen to people whose parents didn't have the money to make their children superhuman?
It's going to get worse and get reposted over and over again.
I had no idea people thought this. I think it's much better than Voyager or TNG.
Send people to jail for three years for downloading songs? Fine. Get 12 of their peers to unaniomously convict them.