More likely some fraction of guests greater than 1/3 come into Hyatt hotels when there's a line to check in, and some fraction of those (the product of the two fractions being 1/3), use the kiosk instead of waiting.
Most of the airlines in Canada now have check in agents who patrol the self-service check in machines helping people. If you can't or don't want to use the machine, the agent will use it for you. So I guess they did upgrade the check in agents' terminals... and moved them out where the customer can use them too.
Seattle never should have sued. Just charge anybody involved in the distribution high taxes/fees for the extra recycling it causes. If the company keeps tossing phone books out to people who don't want them, the fee obviously isn't high enough. The city could even maintain an opt-out website that companies could access to save themselves unnecessary recycling fees.
Libraries do not generally have a mandate for archiving. Their mandate is to make material that serves their target population available to that population. Most certainly don't have the funding, or the organization to do it.
Some universities do have their own publishers, such as MIT press, and it's certainly a valid suggestion that universities should take over responsibility for scientific publishing. You still need the publisher though - you're just moving that job from the private to the public sector.
Many Slashdotters seem to have the idea that every scientist can just post his papers on a web site and that will work fine. What's the publisher for anyway? As the OP pointed out, publishers do lots of things. Ensuring the copy of record is safe and always available is one of those things. It doesn't have to be a for profit corporation like Elsevier that does it, but it has to be somebody, and it costs money.
What you're probably thinking of is covered by (3), (4) or (5). (3) for example, sounds simple, but if it turned out to be the case would mean all sorts of weird things.
We're discussing general results about the limitations of classes of theories, not of specific hypotheses or even whole theories.
That would be an interesting one to sell to the shareholders.
Board/Execs: "We need to move the company to another country!"
Shareholders: "Why?"
Board/Execs: "So we can pay ourselves more without your permission!"
Shareholders: "Hm... maybe we need a new board instead."
Also, Switzerland doesn't have the same trade obligations that the EU nations do. They DO have free trade agreements, but they may not preclude taking action against companies that move to avoid Swiss laws.
Close, but your description is confuses frequency resolution and the Nyquist frequency. And a nitpick: the measurement can be anything, it doesn't have to be digital.
To use your example, the limit on the resolution of the frequency does not depend on the resolution of the sampling, it depends on the extent or field of view of the sampling. If you sample for twice as long you can resolve frequencies half as far apart. The maximum frequency you can represent (the Nyquist frequency), which is like the field of view in the frequency domain, depends on the sampling resolution. Sample twice as frequently and you can represent frequencies that are twice as high.
This is because sampling for a finite time period is like multiplying a signal by a boxcar function. The Fourier transform of a boxcar is a sinc. Multiplication in one domain is convolution in the other, so multiplying your time signal by a boxcar is convolving your frequency domain by a sinc (i.e. blurring it, or reducing the resolution).
Sampling is multiplying by a comb filter (a train of impulses). The Fourier transform of a comb is another comb with different spacing, which means that sampling your signal implies convolving the frequency spectrum by a comb function, i.e. replicating it at a particular spacing. The finer your sampling comb the wider spaced your frequency-domain replicant comb is, so the farther apart the replicants are, meaning you can look at higher frequencies without aliasing being a problem. Aliasing itself isn't reflection of the higher-than-Nyquist frequencies, it's superimposition of the replicants.
I'm not sure anyone is precisely sure what that means regarding the Planck length, Heisenberg uncertainty and conjugate pairs. Quantized momentum, for example, suggests (I think) that the wavefunction must have limited spatial extent. I suppose that implies the universe is finite. Quantized space (a concept not very friendly to general relativity as we understand it) implies that the wavefunction in momentum coordinates as limited extent: momentum is bounded.
You would be surprised at how many people who work in signal processing don't really grasp that concept. Publishing a big chunk of my PhD took a lot longer than it should have because experts in signal processing were having trouble with that concept.
Which is too bad actually. Bell's theorem has an out: it holds only if the universe is local. So if someone DOES figure out a way to measure hidden variables then it implies the universe is non-local, which might mean all kinds of fun sci fi technology.
*This description is based one one of the multiple interpretations of quantum mechanics, and probably does not accurately represent physical reality, only our human understanding of a part of reality that we have not really figured out completely yet.
Bell's theorem combined with all the experiments that have been done based on it, rule out local hidden variable theories. So either (1) your description is correct and the particle doesn't have an exact speed and position at the same time, (2) a LOT of experiments have suffered from horrible systematic errors, (3) the universe is non-local, (4) the universe is superdetermined or (5) mathematics doesn't work properly.
(1) seems the most likely right now, but I'm personally rooting for (3). Instantaneous communication, teleportation, etc.
Except that the no hidden variables results suggest that the photon really doesn't have both those properties at the same time. You can measure the average, but that's all it is - it doesn't tell you anything you shouldn't know about the state of a single photon, even if they are all quantum mechanically "identical." So Heisenberg gets to be right in the strong sense, as well as the weak.
Huh... you must have played on some strange teams. Most of the ones I was on had a captain, who was picked more or less at random and whose job was to pick the second player on the team. After that decisions were made by group consensus. Including informal election of an assistant captain and a (possibly different) captain, whose job description had a lot more to do with being the designated person to argue with the ref than leadership.
Maybe you're so caught up in top down organization you see it in places where it doesn't exist?
I have never figured out why a company would want to a) hire people who didn't want to work there, b) not fire them as soon as that became obvious, and c) try their very best to make all employees, whether they want to be there or not, work as hard as possible by treating them like children.
Most corporate structure seems to be set up with unruly serfs in mind.
No, this story is about using genotyping to treat or diagnose people. Cheap genotyping will definitely help with #2, but it's not going to be useful for treating or diagnosing people for some time. With current trends, by the time that happens actually sequencing your genome will be essentially free.
#1 and #3 are not redundant. A genome is large and complicated. How to analyze it is a major area of research (#3). Even if you have tools to do that effectively you STILL have a big jump to make to link it back to anything that's useful for the individual in the clinic (#1).
Yes, in that case you get exactly what the OP suggested - paranoid rich person status symbols like the full body CT (which does more harm than good, by the way - it's a classic example of why screening tests are so limited).
You can already get tested for various "important" genetic factors and you'll get back a report saying you have the "gene for X," which increases your probability of getting some disease by some small percentage or fraction thereof. Which is where the rich paranoid starts throwing money at more quacks and crackpots.
Good thing you're not in charge of treating patients.
First, the assumption that a genetic test exists for a given disease is an incredibly poor one. Genetics isn't that simple. There are a very few diseases where a simple genetic change means you've got the disease. Guess what? Those all have tests already. Most of the time genes only increase your chance of developing a disease, and that influence may be spread thinly over tens, hundreds or thousands of genes, all interacting.
Secondly, you can't confirm a diagnosis, except in a few rare cases, with genetics. Oh hey, you have a some genes that increase your likelihood of having Celiac disease by a few percent, sometimes. Let's skip the biopsy and just cut out that troublesome bit of bowel!
Genetic sequencing is a horrible diagnostic tool, and probably will be into the foreseeable future.
There's also archiving. Someone has to keep those papers available so the scientific record stays intact. Many of the existing journals have also done a good job scanning old papers and making them available as well.
Very few diseases are due to simple genetic factors, and those already have dedicated tests. Genotyping may eventually become a big part of medicine, but not until there is a LOT more research done into how to use it, a lot more data available, and a lot better techniques for using it.
Slashdot Mirror
More likely some fraction of guests greater than 1/3 come into Hyatt hotels when there's a line to check in, and some fraction of those (the product of the two fractions being 1/3), use the kiosk instead of waiting.
Most of the airlines in Canada now have check in agents who patrol the self-service check in machines helping people. If you can't or don't want to use the machine, the agent will use it for you. So I guess they did upgrade the check in agents' terminals... and moved them out where the customer can use them too.
Seattle never should have sued. Just charge anybody involved in the distribution high taxes/fees for the extra recycling it causes. If the company keeps tossing phone books out to people who don't want them, the fee obviously isn't high enough. The city could even maintain an opt-out website that companies could access to save themselves unnecessary recycling fees.
Libraries do not generally have a mandate for archiving. Their mandate is to make material that serves their target population available to that population. Most certainly don't have the funding, or the organization to do it.
Some universities do have their own publishers, such as MIT press, and it's certainly a valid suggestion that universities should take over responsibility for scientific publishing. You still need the publisher though - you're just moving that job from the private to the public sector.
Many Slashdotters seem to have the idea that every scientist can just post his papers on a web site and that will work fine. What's the publisher for anyway? As the OP pointed out, publishers do lots of things. Ensuring the copy of record is safe and always available is one of those things. It doesn't have to be a for profit corporation like Elsevier that does it, but it has to be somebody, and it costs money.
What you're probably thinking of is covered by (3), (4) or (5). (3) for example, sounds simple, but if it turned out to be the case would mean all sorts of weird things.
We're discussing general results about the limitations of classes of theories, not of specific hypotheses or even whole theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_inequality
What I said is true. Your first paragraph is not, which casts suspicion on the second as well.
So you agree with me, but you just had to start with "No..." for some reason?
So lots of people are going to look at this page, including the ads displayed on it? Yeah, those Slashdot editors... idiots.
That would be an interesting one to sell to the shareholders.
Board/Execs: "We need to move the company to another country!"
Shareholders: "Why?"
Board/Execs: "So we can pay ourselves more without your permission!"
Shareholders: "Hm... maybe we need a new board instead."
Also, Switzerland doesn't have the same trade obligations that the EU nations do. They DO have free trade agreements, but they may not preclude taking action against companies that move to avoid Swiss laws.
A shareholder.
Close, but your description is confuses frequency resolution and the Nyquist frequency. And a nitpick: the measurement can be anything, it doesn't have to be digital.
To use your example, the limit on the resolution of the frequency does not depend on the resolution of the sampling, it depends on the extent or field of view of the sampling. If you sample for twice as long you can resolve frequencies half as far apart. The maximum frequency you can represent (the Nyquist frequency), which is like the field of view in the frequency domain, depends on the sampling resolution. Sample twice as frequently and you can represent frequencies that are twice as high.
This is because sampling for a finite time period is like multiplying a signal by a boxcar function. The Fourier transform of a boxcar is a sinc. Multiplication in one domain is convolution in the other, so multiplying your time signal by a boxcar is convolving your frequency domain by a sinc (i.e. blurring it, or reducing the resolution).
Sampling is multiplying by a comb filter (a train of impulses). The Fourier transform of a comb is another comb with different spacing, which means that sampling your signal implies convolving the frequency spectrum by a comb function, i.e. replicating it at a particular spacing. The finer your sampling comb the wider spaced your frequency-domain replicant comb is, so the farther apart the replicants are, meaning you can look at higher frequencies without aliasing being a problem. Aliasing itself isn't reflection of the higher-than-Nyquist frequencies, it's superimposition of the replicants.
I'm not sure anyone is precisely sure what that means regarding the Planck length, Heisenberg uncertainty and conjugate pairs. Quantized momentum, for example, suggests (I think) that the wavefunction must have limited spatial extent. I suppose that implies the universe is finite. Quantized space (a concept not very friendly to general relativity as we understand it) implies that the wavefunction in momentum coordinates as limited extent: momentum is bounded.
You would be surprised at how many people who work in signal processing don't really grasp that concept. Publishing a big chunk of my PhD took a lot longer than it should have because experts in signal processing were having trouble with that concept.
Which is too bad actually. Bell's theorem has an out: it holds only if the universe is local. So if someone DOES figure out a way to measure hidden variables then it implies the universe is non-local, which might mean all kinds of fun sci fi technology.
Bell's theorem combined with all the experiments that have been done based on it, rule out local hidden variable theories. So either (1) your description is correct and the particle doesn't have an exact speed and position at the same time, (2) a LOT of experiments have suffered from horrible systematic errors, (3) the universe is non-local, (4) the universe is superdetermined or (5) mathematics doesn't work properly.
(1) seems the most likely right now, but I'm personally rooting for (3). Instantaneous communication, teleportation, etc.
Except that the no hidden variables results suggest that the photon really doesn't have both those properties at the same time. You can measure the average, but that's all it is - it doesn't tell you anything you shouldn't know about the state of a single photon, even if they are all quantum mechanically "identical." So Heisenberg gets to be right in the strong sense, as well as the weak.
Huh... you must have played on some strange teams. Most of the ones I was on had a captain, who was picked more or less at random and whose job was to pick the second player on the team. After that decisions were made by group consensus. Including informal election of an assistant captain and a (possibly different) captain, whose job description had a lot more to do with being the designated person to argue with the ref than leadership.
Maybe you're so caught up in top down organization you see it in places where it doesn't exist?
I have never figured out why a company would want to a) hire people who didn't want to work there, b) not fire them as soon as that became obvious, and c) try their very best to make all employees, whether they want to be there or not, work as hard as possible by treating them like children.
Most corporate structure seems to be set up with unruly serfs in mind.
"you quickly begin to see how such a workplace is actually fairly toxic."
Do you have to ingest it, or can it be absorbed through the skin? Inhaled?
No, this story is about using genotyping to treat or diagnose people. Cheap genotyping will definitely help with #2, but it's not going to be useful for treating or diagnosing people for some time. With current trends, by the time that happens actually sequencing your genome will be essentially free.
#1 and #3 are not redundant. A genome is large and complicated. How to analyze it is a major area of research (#3). Even if you have tools to do that effectively you STILL have a big jump to make to link it back to anything that's useful for the individual in the clinic (#1).
Yes, in that case you get exactly what the OP suggested - paranoid rich person status symbols like the full body CT (which does more harm than good, by the way - it's a classic example of why screening tests are so limited).
You can already get tested for various "important" genetic factors and you'll get back a report saying you have the "gene for X," which increases your probability of getting some disease by some small percentage or fraction thereof. Which is where the rich paranoid starts throwing money at more quacks and crackpots.
Good thing you're not in charge of treating patients.
First, the assumption that a genetic test exists for a given disease is an incredibly poor one. Genetics isn't that simple. There are a very few diseases where a simple genetic change means you've got the disease. Guess what? Those all have tests already. Most of the time genes only increase your chance of developing a disease, and that influence may be spread thinly over tens, hundreds or thousands of genes, all interacting.
Secondly, you can't confirm a diagnosis, except in a few rare cases, with genetics. Oh hey, you have a some genes that increase your likelihood of having Celiac disease by a few percent, sometimes. Let's skip the biopsy and just cut out that troublesome bit of bowel!
Genetic sequencing is a horrible diagnostic tool, and probably will be into the foreseeable future.
There's also archiving. Someone has to keep those papers available so the scientific record stays intact. Many of the existing journals have also done a good job scanning old papers and making them available as well.
Many PLoS ONE level impact journals are free to publish in, unless you want colour in the print version or blow through their page limits.
If you want it freely available then lobby your granting agencies to pay for it.
Most granting agencies take a dim view of high publication costs in grant budgets.
Very few diseases are due to simple genetic factors, and those already have dedicated tests. Genotyping may eventually become a big part of medicine, but not until there is a LOT more research done into how to use it, a lot more data available, and a lot better techniques for using it.