iChat can be set up with bridges between networks. If you know the address of the person you want to talk to, you can talk to them. If you know the address of the subnet of the person you want to talk to, you can set up a bonjour relay or VPN that will list accessible people on the subnet for you. This stuff isn't iChat specific either. The UNIX "write" command lets you send messages to users on any system you know the address of, and have an account on. Every web server implements bidirectional communication with anybody who knows the address of the server.
Are you complaining that there isn't a way to look up addresses? There is. It's called DNS, and it is decentralized although, for efficiency, most of us don't run our own DNS server.
You know the phone company compiles phone books right? If you want to talk to someone on the POTS network you need to know their number or use that centrally compiled phone book. There is no POTS equivalent to DNS.
In the context of local communication during an emergency, a zeroconf type system is probably exactly what you want. Local nodes advertising themselves completely autonomously. If connectivity outside your area is available you can talk to the gateway and get outside address and routing information (this is the way DNS is usually set up). If you get disconnected from that gateway by the zombie apocalypse you can still talk to anybody you are still connected to.
You don't seem to have very deep knowledge of how the Internet, or the protocols its based on, work. You keep insisting that solutions are hard and don't exist when they were first implemented decades ago.
I'm a PhD with experience in clinical trial design and analysis. I have no money (I said I'm a PhD, right?) but I'll happily help start and work for a company that wants to do productive medical research. A friend of mine picked out a perfect spot in Puerto Rico for the headquarters. Does that count?
There are lots of governments in the world that are entrusted with things like public health, and do a lot better job than your corporations. Perhaps you should think about trying a new government?
My point is, that asymmetry has affected the thinking of every programmer since the beginning of the commercial Internet. The "all nodes are peers" architecture of DARPANet fell by the wayside, despite its genius, because manifestly, not all nodes were peers. Most nodes had nearly no bandwidth in either direction (POTS modems), while a few nodes had an embarrassment of bandwidth. Most nodes had ephemeral connectivity (those same POTS modems), while a few nodes were online all the time. That asymmetry persists to this day, and while the absolute numbers are higher, the relative ratios haven't changed all that much.
You're conflating all sorts of things. It's GOOD that the Internet is structured to deal with heterogenous nodes, with differing capabilities. Otherwise you end up with a network where you have to have certain capabilities to play, and everyone is limited by the lowest common denominator. The basic Internet protocols were in fact designed with heterogeneity in mind: the Internet connects heterogeneous networks together. You're a node on your ISP's network. My ISP can implement things the same way, or differently. The university network I'm currently connected to can again do things however they like.
DNS is decentralized, again by design long before significant numbers of home users were connected. Yes, there are some authoritative servers, but it's highly unlikely you've ever connected to one. They provide only an authoritative record. The actual working data is distributed to thousands of more local machines. It's not dissimilar to bittorrent, actually. You can run your own DNS system if you want, and some people do (a lot of people run their own DNS internally to their own network). It's just more useful to use the one that everyone else does.
Decentralized VOIP is not a hard problem, and it most certainly has been done. Most, if not all, of the Internet VOIP software does it. Skype (Sky-Peer), for example. Skype uses a centralized phone book server to tell you who's online and what their address is, but when you actually talk to someone you're talking peer-to-peer, direct. If you want an example of fully decentralized, there's Apple's iChat. You can set up an iChat server that provides a central phone book but without one it uses bonjour/zeroconf to advertise itself and populate your contact list.
Exactly. You can't make a sandbox foolproof. Even if your "sandbox" is hardware. There were lots of exploits proposed for the execute bit as well. If you're relying on your sandbox, whatever it is, to be foolproof, you're a fool.
Good security is always multilayered. Yes, sandboxing, possibly at multiple levels, improves security. So does not being able to install things just by clicking on a link.
The ISRO Mars orbiter was in an eliptical orbit of Earth and a burn at the lower (close to Earth) end of that orbit injected it into a heliocentric transfer orbit. The spacecraft has more kinetic+potential energy now than it did before the burn.
If you're young and healthy and you get pneumonia (of a particular kind) they can give you antibiotics and you'll likely be fine. But you probably would have survived without too, with a somewhat greater risk of complications and a longer recovery time. If you're not young and healthy... pneumonia is one of the leading proximate causes of death.
Broken fingers are generally splinted and that's it. They fix themselves, or they don't. Sure you can take pain killers, but you can drug someone with a mental illness into a state where they don't care too. That's not a cure.
If you have insomnia you can take drugs for it, which have side effects, dependence issues, and are generally not recommended for long term use. That's also not a cure, it's a treatment for the symptoms, with lots of undesirable side effects.
If you have joint issues some joints can be replaced. It's a major operation with a significant chance of complications, and joint replacements don't work as well as your original joints, just better than your worn out joints. Most people who get joint replacements aren't going to be using them like a young person would, and may not live long enough for most of the side effects to be a problem. But that's not always the case. Generally they do not last 20 to 30 years. They need to be replaced well before then (if you stay mobile long enough).
Vaccination, water sterilization, sewage treatment, etc. are all fantastic and improve health immeasurably, but they're not magic bullets. Vaccination is not 100% effective and generally can't help once you're infected.
You've got an incredibly low standard for "magic bullet" where physical illness is concerned (drug me until I don't care?) and a very high one for mental illnesses. You hear about the nasty effects of psychiatric drugs because people like to make movies about them. Nobody wants to go see a movie about how the kid with diabetes has to take insulin for the rest of his life and will die young after going blind and having a foot amputated. For most people with mental illness, modern drugs are lifesavers. They're not cures, but we have precious few cures for physical diseases either.
People with some mental illness can be treated for a short period and are fine, just like your pneumonia and broken finger. People with serious mental illness may never be completely normal, and may need supportive care, including medication, for the rest of their lives. Just like people who have congenital heart defects, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, colitis, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration, or any of a host of other physical problems.
I'm not sure that's true (I do medical research and used to do crisis intervention, BTW). Since the 60s we've come a long way in treating mental illness. There are a lot of people with mental illnesses whose conditions are managed quite well on the appropriate medication, and who lead productive lives. There are a lot of people with physical illnesses whose conditions are managed quite well on the appropriate medication, and who lead productive lives. There are also some exceptions, both mental and physical, whose conditions do not respond well to the available drugs, or who don't want to take the treatment. The ones with mental illnesses seem to be featured in books and movies and on the news more often than ones with physical problems.
We're fascinated (in a slowing down for a car wreck kind of way) with mental illness in a way that we really aren't with physical illness. That makes non-quantitative conclusions heavily suspect due to selection bias.
Since this study is about y-chromosomes, the sides were quite accurately represented. The Noah story, as written, can't adequately explain the observed variation in y-chromosomes, even in light of this story that Europeans may be descended from a very small pool. There weren't enough y-chromosomes on board the ark.
Science can't prove or disprove anything. It can put probabilistic limits on conjectures. Chromosomes might do weird things, like mutate massively, on occasion that we haven't observed. Aliens might have done some genetic engineering. God might have created some extra y-chromosomes out of nowhere. Or maybe every non-aquatic species in the world (except unicorns) didn't pile onto a boat.
I think it stems from the same problem. Western societies, especially the US, put a lot of emphasis on the individual and a high internal locus of control. Individuals claim the right to make lots of important decisions for themselves, and as a consequence society has to entrust individuals with the responsibility for making those decisions. Mental illness scares individuals because it means their ability to make good decisions can be diminished, and individualistic societies because the other guys' ability to make decisions might be impaired.
Someone mentioned that in some countries mental illness is just like any other illness. You check into a hospital and when your condition is manageable you're released, with no stigma. That doesn't happen in hyper-individualistic societies because individuals can't relinquish the control required to commit themselves (or allow others to commit them) and other people can't get over the fear that you might not be capable of meeting your individual responsibility (to, say, not shoot up an elementary school). It's kind of like being a leper in a society where it's taboo to take antibiotics.
Hey, so you're saying that if you work for twenty years for food-bank money you might, one day, just maybe, make a bit more than a grocery store manager? Except almost certainly not, because professor is like drug kingpin - lots and lots of aspirants and almost no positions.
It is. Which is perfectly fine if that's the kind of society you want to live in. Unfortunately, private enterprise doesn't seem to be particularly good at long term investment, in particular, things like basic research. So if all the scientists go work as grocery clerks we're all going to be short on cures for diseases, breakthrough technologies etc.
I'm in academia at the moment but every year I'm having a harder and harder time justifying working for a quarter of the salaries drawn by my childhood friends who dropped out of high school, particularly since there isn't really much hope of advancement.
Some company goes out and puts some off the shelf microwave transmitters on some rooftops, for their own private use. They get faster ping times with their dedicated connection. How is that progress?
Where I work (now, not in '79), the research associates make more than the post docs. Maybe not twice as much, but a significant amount. PhDs make less, unless they have a scholarship (I made twice as much as a PhD than as a postdoc, factoring in the tax advantages). Research assistants are undergrads or equivalent (so I assumed you meant an equivalent of research associate), and they usually get paid about as much as grad students. Nurses are somewhere off in the stratosphere, making more than professors.
I think you missed the point. The Play store has lots of malware on it. Google is not good at making sure their software stores are spotless. If they can't do it for Android, why would they be able to do it for Chrome?
Your comment is only really relevant to individuals hooked up through personal ISP subscriptions. I don't like that it's the only reasonably priced option, but it doesn't really have much to do with how the Internet is implemented. It also doesn't have much to do with implementing an IP-based phone system. The phone companies' current VOIP systems are symmetric. They have to be.
"You overstate your case." If you'll say how you think so, we can discuss it. I'm not really interested in arguing with your opinions without knowing what you base them on.
That's silly. Knowing the assumed distribution, the mean, and the p-value you can compute a confidence interval, and vice versa. Ditto for an effect size. Both of those are "solutions" proposed by people who a) don't know what the problem is b) don't know what a p-value, confidence interval or effect size is or c) are trying to play off the "but look at how much of my confidence interval DOESN'T overlap zero!" to make insignificant results seem significant.
Also, most tests aren't overly sensitive to reasonable departures from normality, and a lot of data is normally distributed by the time it's analyzed anyway, thanks to the central limit theorem. A far bigger problem is people just doing the whole thing incorrectly, or drawing unjustified conclusions. The difference of differences fallacy seems to be one of the more popular.
The number you get out of applying any old test to your data is not a p-value. Of course you need to use the right test. The problem is not p-values, it's people doing analysis who have no idea what they're doing. Of course you need to look at your residuals to make sure there aren't any patterns. Not propose some silly magic bullet solution that's mathematically equivalent to a p-value anyway.
"The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease."
There's almost never a magic bullet treatment, for any disease, mental or physical. The problem with mental illness is that it diminishes the sufferer's ability to make decisions for himself. That doesn't mesh well with a society of individuals.
All but four of those people have a notable lack of y-chromosomes, and the four remaining all share theirs (well, in the context of the bible, perhaps not).
How is this progress? We've had microwave transmission networks for decades. This is an example of a silly broken system causing people to waste resources.
Slashdot Mirror
iChat can be set up with bridges between networks. If you know the address of the person you want to talk to, you can talk to them. If you know the address of the subnet of the person you want to talk to, you can set up a bonjour relay or VPN that will list accessible people on the subnet for you. This stuff isn't iChat specific either. The UNIX "write" command lets you send messages to users on any system you know the address of, and have an account on. Every web server implements bidirectional communication with anybody who knows the address of the server.
Are you complaining that there isn't a way to look up addresses? There is. It's called DNS, and it is decentralized although, for efficiency, most of us don't run our own DNS server.
You know the phone company compiles phone books right? If you want to talk to someone on the POTS network you need to know their number or use that centrally compiled phone book. There is no POTS equivalent to DNS.
In the context of local communication during an emergency, a zeroconf type system is probably exactly what you want. Local nodes advertising themselves completely autonomously. If connectivity outside your area is available you can talk to the gateway and get outside address and routing information (this is the way DNS is usually set up). If you get disconnected from that gateway by the zombie apocalypse you can still talk to anybody you are still connected to.
You don't seem to have very deep knowledge of how the Internet, or the protocols its based on, work. You keep insisting that solutions are hard and don't exist when they were first implemented decades ago.
I'm a PhD with experience in clinical trial design and analysis. I have no money (I said I'm a PhD, right?) but I'll happily help start and work for a company that wants to do productive medical research. A friend of mine picked out a perfect spot in Puerto Rico for the headquarters. Does that count?
There are lots of governments in the world that are entrusted with things like public health, and do a lot better job than your corporations. Perhaps you should think about trying a new government?
You're conflating all sorts of things. It's GOOD that the Internet is structured to deal with heterogenous nodes, with differing capabilities. Otherwise you end up with a network where you have to have certain capabilities to play, and everyone is limited by the lowest common denominator. The basic Internet protocols were in fact designed with heterogeneity in mind: the Internet connects heterogeneous networks together. You're a node on your ISP's network. My ISP can implement things the same way, or differently. The university network I'm currently connected to can again do things however they like.
DNS is decentralized, again by design long before significant numbers of home users were connected. Yes, there are some authoritative servers, but it's highly unlikely you've ever connected to one. They provide only an authoritative record. The actual working data is distributed to thousands of more local machines. It's not dissimilar to bittorrent, actually. You can run your own DNS system if you want, and some people do (a lot of people run their own DNS internally to their own network). It's just more useful to use the one that everyone else does.
Decentralized VOIP is not a hard problem, and it most certainly has been done. Most, if not all, of the Internet VOIP software does it. Skype (Sky-Peer), for example. Skype uses a centralized phone book server to tell you who's online and what their address is, but when you actually talk to someone you're talking peer-to-peer, direct. If you want an example of fully decentralized, there's Apple's iChat. You can set up an iChat server that provides a central phone book but without one it uses bonjour/zeroconf to advertise itself and populate your contact list.
Exactly. You can't make a sandbox foolproof. Even if your "sandbox" is hardware. There were lots of exploits proposed for the execute bit as well. If you're relying on your sandbox, whatever it is, to be foolproof, you're a fool.
Good security is always multilayered. Yes, sandboxing, possibly at multiple levels, improves security. So does not being able to install things just by clicking on a link.
The ISRO Mars orbiter was in an eliptical orbit of Earth and a burn at the lower (close to Earth) end of that orbit injected it into a heliocentric transfer orbit. The spacecraft has more kinetic+potential energy now than it did before the burn.
http://www.isro.org/mars/mission-profile.aspx (they just completed step 1)
If you're young and healthy and you get pneumonia (of a particular kind) they can give you antibiotics and you'll likely be fine. But you probably would have survived without too, with a somewhat greater risk of complications and a longer recovery time. If you're not young and healthy... pneumonia is one of the leading proximate causes of death.
Broken fingers are generally splinted and that's it. They fix themselves, or they don't. Sure you can take pain killers, but you can drug someone with a mental illness into a state where they don't care too. That's not a cure.
If you have insomnia you can take drugs for it, which have side effects, dependence issues, and are generally not recommended for long term use. That's also not a cure, it's a treatment for the symptoms, with lots of undesirable side effects.
If you have joint issues some joints can be replaced. It's a major operation with a significant chance of complications, and joint replacements don't work as well as your original joints, just better than your worn out joints. Most people who get joint replacements aren't going to be using them like a young person would, and may not live long enough for most of the side effects to be a problem. But that's not always the case. Generally they do not last 20 to 30 years. They need to be replaced well before then (if you stay mobile long enough).
Vaccination, water sterilization, sewage treatment, etc. are all fantastic and improve health immeasurably, but they're not magic bullets. Vaccination is not 100% effective and generally can't help once you're infected.
You've got an incredibly low standard for "magic bullet" where physical illness is concerned (drug me until I don't care?) and a very high one for mental illnesses. You hear about the nasty effects of psychiatric drugs because people like to make movies about them. Nobody wants to go see a movie about how the kid with diabetes has to take insulin for the rest of his life and will die young after going blind and having a foot amputated. For most people with mental illness, modern drugs are lifesavers. They're not cures, but we have precious few cures for physical diseases either.
People with some mental illness can be treated for a short period and are fine, just like your pneumonia and broken finger. People with serious mental illness may never be completely normal, and may need supportive care, including medication, for the rest of their lives. Just like people who have congenital heart defects, arthritis, diabetes, high blood pressure, colitis, multiple sclerosis, macular degeneration, or any of a host of other physical problems.
I'm not sure that's true (I do medical research and used to do crisis intervention, BTW). Since the 60s we've come a long way in treating mental illness. There are a lot of people with mental illnesses whose conditions are managed quite well on the appropriate medication, and who lead productive lives. There are a lot of people with physical illnesses whose conditions are managed quite well on the appropriate medication, and who lead productive lives. There are also some exceptions, both mental and physical, whose conditions do not respond well to the available drugs, or who don't want to take the treatment. The ones with mental illnesses seem to be featured in books and movies and on the news more often than ones with physical problems.
We're fascinated (in a slowing down for a car wreck kind of way) with mental illness in a way that we really aren't with physical illness. That makes non-quantitative conclusions heavily suspect due to selection bias.
Since this study is about y-chromosomes, the sides were quite accurately represented. The Noah story, as written, can't adequately explain the observed variation in y-chromosomes, even in light of this story that Europeans may be descended from a very small pool. There weren't enough y-chromosomes on board the ark.
Science can't prove or disprove anything. It can put probabilistic limits on conjectures. Chromosomes might do weird things, like mutate massively, on occasion that we haven't observed. Aliens might have done some genetic engineering. God might have created some extra y-chromosomes out of nowhere. Or maybe every non-aquatic species in the world (except unicorns) didn't pile onto a boat.
I think it stems from the same problem. Western societies, especially the US, put a lot of emphasis on the individual and a high internal locus of control. Individuals claim the right to make lots of important decisions for themselves, and as a consequence society has to entrust individuals with the responsibility for making those decisions. Mental illness scares individuals because it means their ability to make good decisions can be diminished, and individualistic societies because the other guys' ability to make decisions might be impaired.
Someone mentioned that in some countries mental illness is just like any other illness. You check into a hospital and when your condition is manageable you're released, with no stigma. That doesn't happen in hyper-individualistic societies because individuals can't relinquish the control required to commit themselves (or allow others to commit them) and other people can't get over the fear that you might not be capable of meeting your individual responsibility (to, say, not shoot up an elementary school). It's kind of like being a leper in a society where it's taboo to take antibiotics.
Or steal the drone....
Hey, so you're saying that if you work for twenty years for food-bank money you might, one day, just maybe, make a bit more than a grocery store manager? Except almost certainly not, because professor is like drug kingpin - lots and lots of aspirants and almost no positions.
It is. Which is perfectly fine if that's the kind of society you want to live in. Unfortunately, private enterprise doesn't seem to be particularly good at long term investment, in particular, things like basic research. So if all the scientists go work as grocery clerks we're all going to be short on cures for diseases, breakthrough technologies etc.
I'm in academia at the moment but every year I'm having a harder and harder time justifying working for a quarter of the salaries drawn by my childhood friends who dropped out of high school, particularly since there isn't really much hope of advancement.
Some company goes out and puts some off the shelf microwave transmitters on some rooftops, for their own private use. They get faster ping times with their dedicated connection. How is that progress?
Where I work (now, not in '79), the research associates make more than the post docs. Maybe not twice as much, but a significant amount. PhDs make less, unless they have a scholarship (I made twice as much as a PhD than as a postdoc, factoring in the tax advantages). Research assistants are undergrads or equivalent (so I assumed you meant an equivalent of research associate), and they usually get paid about as much as grad students. Nurses are somewhere off in the stratosphere, making more than professors.
I think you missed the point. The Play store has lots of malware on it. Google is not good at making sure their software stores are spotless. If they can't do it for Android, why would they be able to do it for Chrome?
No, they can't. There are exploits that can break out of VMs.
Your comment is only really relevant to individuals hooked up through personal ISP subscriptions. I don't like that it's the only reasonably priced option, but it doesn't really have much to do with how the Internet is implemented. It also doesn't have much to do with implementing an IP-based phone system. The phone companies' current VOIP systems are symmetric. They have to be.
"You overstate your case." If you'll say how you think so, we can discuss it. I'm not really interested in arguing with your opinions without knowing what you base them on.
That's silly. Knowing the assumed distribution, the mean, and the p-value you can compute a confidence interval, and vice versa. Ditto for an effect size. Both of those are "solutions" proposed by people who a) don't know what the problem is b) don't know what a p-value, confidence interval or effect size is or c) are trying to play off the "but look at how much of my confidence interval DOESN'T overlap zero!" to make insignificant results seem significant.
Also, most tests aren't overly sensitive to reasonable departures from normality, and a lot of data is normally distributed by the time it's analyzed anyway, thanks to the central limit theorem. A far bigger problem is people just doing the whole thing incorrectly, or drawing unjustified conclusions. The difference of differences fallacy seems to be one of the more popular.
The number you get out of applying any old test to your data is not a p-value. Of course you need to use the right test. The problem is not p-values, it's people doing analysis who have no idea what they're doing. Of course you need to look at your residuals to make sure there aren't any patterns. Not propose some silly magic bullet solution that's mathematically equivalent to a p-value anyway.
Wealthy patron was equivalent to corporate funded. Less biased? I suppose it could be....
"The trouble with mental health is that there isn't any kind of magic bullet treatment like there can be with just about any other disease."
There's almost never a magic bullet treatment, for any disease, mental or physical. The problem with mental illness is that it diminishes the sufferer's ability to make decisions for himself. That doesn't mesh well with a society of individuals.
Curious, are you American?
A slingshot maneuver is used to help change your orbit, i.e. eject you from one orbit and inject you into another one.
All but four of those people have a notable lack of y-chromosomes, and the four remaining all share theirs (well, in the context of the bible, perhaps not).
How is this progress? We've had microwave transmission networks for decades. This is an example of a silly broken system causing people to waste resources.