It's 2880x1800. Your confusion stems from Lion's text and OS UI element handling, which basically gives you choices about how big you want text and UI elements to appear. It looks like you can specify a kind of effective resolution, telling Lion to fool all the old software that doesn't know about high dpi screens into not rendering things too small to see.
OpenGL and the Cocoa drawing APIs have full access to high resolution screen.
Most laptops require a screwdriver to replace the hard drive. This one is no different. Except that in this case, the "hard drive" is a chip, third party versions of which will undoubtedly be available soon, just like the were for the Air.
RAM soldered to the motherboard is disappointing, although looking at how things are crammed in, I'm not really surprised. iFixit's point that it's "the first MacBook Pro that will be unable to adapt to future advances in memory and storage technology" is incorrect - Intel laptop motherboards have almost always been limited to memory that existed when they were sold, and you CAN upgrade the storage.
Scientific papers are a little bit different from novels. Journals are not magazines.
In traditional journals authors submit articles, may or may not have to pay some publication costs, and then the publisher sells the journal to individuals (sometimes) but mostly to libraries. In open access journals, all of the publication costs are borne by the authors so that the articles can be made available to everyone for free.
It's my understanding that if you're found guilty of patent infringement in the US you're supposed to be charged some multiplier of the actual damages - in this case, the number of apps sold times some value assigned to those apps. So Apple and the developer could very well be liable for more damages if they continue to sell the app during the trial.
"I wasn't saying that double-blind controlled trials were useless, or that they were worse than other methods in the same field."
"This is why clinical trials are one of the most unreliable forms of data in science"
Kinda sounds like that's what you were saying, actually.
The regulations don't just apply to drug companies. They apply to ANYONE testing a medical intervention for a life threatening condition. Clinical trials, when done properly as most serious ones are, are quite reliable. The biggest complaint today is that they work too well - too many compounds that look promising in pre-clinial studies are failing to pass clinical trials.
There were some journals that required submission of raw data. They quickly backed off on that requirement, or folded. For much of science, the raw data is simply too big for a journal to effectively collect, store (indefinitely) and make available. My papers usually depend on somewhere between 200 GB and 1 TB of private data. All data must be stored and available for audit in FDA regulated clinical trials though.
Diablo II had a standalone single player mode and Blizzard got a lot of complaints about people not being able to use their single player characters on the online side.
How do I know you didn't just fake your data completely? Or the analysis? The average researcher who doesn't know how to do multiple comparison correction properly doesn't just publish their significant result, they publish everything they tried, in a great big table, and it's blindingly obvious what they did. There probably is some fraud going on, but it's in the same category with outright fakery - either it gets uncovered over time or everybody publishes all their data.
The FDA modernization act of 1997 requires that all trials of interventions to treat life threatening diseases be registered no later than 21 days after a trial is opened for enrolment. For other agents, even though the trial might not be required to be registered, it's unlikely either the FDA or an ethics review board would accept a major trial that had not been registered. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM126838.pdf
Even without trial registration, a (blinded) randomized clinical trial is the best source of evidence. These by definition are planned in advance, including a hypothesis and a planned analysis. Yes, inconclusive results (NOT negative results) might not be published. But in any other form of scientific study, inconclusive results are unlikely to be published, hypotheses are frequently made up after the fact, AND the analysis is often ad hoc.
"Granted your going to be buying an external optical drive if you want for around a hundred"
Why? I was shooting some weddings and wanted to make lightscribed DVDs so I picked up an external drive - for $25. You can probably find the things on street corners now.
That is NOT what you said. There was no "my" in your post, and your statement "unless you are a graphics professional..." implies you're talking about everyone who is not a graphics professional. Little revisionist history hey?
If you really did mean specifically for yourself... no offense, but nobody cares.
I've always had a problem understanding the whole "objectifying women" meme. I'm sure some guys (and probably some women) view some, most or even all women (and/or men) as objects. Do you really think they see them more as objects if they're in a skirt and smiling then if they're in jeans and frowning?
If person A treats another person as an object that's a problem with person A. The "objectifying women" thing seems to be more about a certain political group that opposes almost everything because they heard once that it might be bad.
Go to another conference and there are lots of booth dudes on the floor in suits with tanned skin and whitened teeth. Are they being objectified? Should we ban them? What about actors and actresses, many of whom are more attractive than average?
An eV is a Je/C, which, though technically not an SI unit, is a lot closer than a pound. It IS essentially a metric system unit - it's used with the metric prefixes. The kcal is also a metric system unit, predating the SI. The mol is similar to the eV: defined based on SI units and fundamental quantities and used with metric prefixes. Ditto with Hartrees.
So yes, my one liner wasn't perfectly accurate, but pretty close.
Who is this "we?" The same "we" that pays attractive women high to very high wages so "we" can look at them? I don't think "we" is very bright, and "we" is the one getting trained.
Assuming you mean "orders of magnitude," you might want to familiarize yourself with what that actually means. 80 tonnes and 20 tonnes are not different by an order of magnitude. Not even one.
Also, the 80 tonne estimate seems to be from the distant past. More recent estimates are in the high 20s, so the difference with this estimate isn't even 50%.
Of course it was. Nobody does science in pounds, not even in the US. If you submitted a paper with non-metric units the editor would tell you to fix it.
Since 2006, USF’s Dr. Cao and Dr. Arendash have published several studies investigating the effects of caffeine/coffee administered to Alzheimer’s mice. Most recently, they reported that caffeine interacts with a yet unidentified component of coffee to boost blood levels of a critical growth factor that seems to fight off the Alzheimer’s disease process.
Boo on you. You just ruined somebody's day. He got to sound all knowledgeable by saying "correlation does not equal causation!" and then you interfered with facts and stuff.
It's quite possible to correct for multiple comparisons when you're doing a study, careless researchers just don't do it.
A proper clinical trial is one of the most reliable forms of data. Real clinical trials are registered, including their hypothese and analysis methods, so that you can't get away with testing a bunch of things and forgetting to mention all the ones that didn't work out.
Slashdot Mirror
It's 2880x1800. Your confusion stems from Lion's text and OS UI element handling, which basically gives you choices about how big you want text and UI elements to appear. It looks like you can specify a kind of effective resolution, telling Lion to fool all the old software that doesn't know about high dpi screens into not rendering things too small to see.
OpenGL and the Cocoa drawing APIs have full access to high resolution screen.
Most laptops require a screwdriver to replace the hard drive. This one is no different. Except that in this case, the "hard drive" is a chip, third party versions of which will undoubtedly be available soon, just like the were for the Air.
RAM soldered to the motherboard is disappointing, although looking at how things are crammed in, I'm not really surprised. iFixit's point that it's "the first MacBook Pro that will be unable to adapt to future advances in memory and storage technology" is incorrect - Intel laptop motherboards have almost always been limited to memory that existed when they were sold, and you CAN upgrade the storage.
Scientific papers are a little bit different from novels. Journals are not magazines.
In traditional journals authors submit articles, may or may not have to pay some publication costs, and then the publisher sells the journal to individuals (sometimes) but mostly to libraries. In open access journals, all of the publication costs are borne by the authors so that the articles can be made available to everyone for free.
It's my understanding that if you're found guilty of patent infringement in the US you're supposed to be charged some multiplier of the actual damages - in this case, the number of apps sold times some value assigned to those apps. So Apple and the developer could very well be liable for more damages if they continue to sell the app during the trial.
"Apple has the ability to delete apps from your device."
Which they don't, unlike Google, who also has that ability. So what's your point?
"I wasn't saying that double-blind controlled trials were useless, or that they were worse than other methods in the same field."
"This is why clinical trials are one of the most unreliable forms of data in science"
Kinda sounds like that's what you were saying, actually.
The regulations don't just apply to drug companies. They apply to ANYONE testing a medical intervention for a life threatening condition. Clinical trials, when done properly as most serious ones are, are quite reliable. The biggest complaint today is that they work too well - too many compounds that look promising in pre-clinial studies are failing to pass clinical trials.
There were some journals that required submission of raw data. They quickly backed off on that requirement, or folded. For much of science, the raw data is simply too big for a journal to effectively collect, store (indefinitely) and make available. My papers usually depend on somewhere between 200 GB and 1 TB of private data. All data must be stored and available for audit in FDA regulated clinical trials though.
Everyone who likes it is off playing it instead of posting on Slashdot.
Diablo II had a standalone single player mode and Blizzard got a lot of complaints about people not being able to use their single player characters on the online side.
PLOS 1 has done pretty well.
How do I know you didn't just fake your data completely? Or the analysis? The average researcher who doesn't know how to do multiple comparison correction properly doesn't just publish their significant result, they publish everything they tried, in a great big table, and it's blindingly obvious what they did. There probably is some fraud going on, but it's in the same category with outright fakery - either it gets uncovered over time or everybody publishes all their data.
The FDA modernization act of 1997 requires that all trials of interventions to treat life threatening diseases be registered no later than 21 days after a trial is opened for enrolment. For other agents, even though the trial might not be required to be registered, it's unlikely either the FDA or an ethics review board would accept a major trial that had not been registered. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM126838.pdf
Even without trial registration, a (blinded) randomized clinical trial is the best source of evidence. These by definition are planned in advance, including a hypothesis and a planned analysis. Yes, inconclusive results (NOT negative results) might not be published. But in any other form of scientific study, inconclusive results are unlikely to be published, hypotheses are frequently made up after the fact, AND the analysis is often ad hoc.
"Granted your going to be buying an external optical drive if you want for around a hundred"
Why? I was shooting some weddings and wanted to make lightscribed DVDs so I picked up an external drive - for $25. You can probably find the things on street corners now.
"I already said i dont get it for my use case,"
That is NOT what you said. There was no "my" in your post, and your statement "unless you are a graphics professional..." implies you're talking about everyone who is not a graphics professional. Little revisionist history hey?
If you really did mean specifically for yourself... no offense, but nobody cares.
A four and a half pound 15.4" laptop with a 2880x1800 screen.
Oh, okay, so you didn't make a typo, you just don't understand how to use common words. You can't "be off by magnitudes." It's not a countable item.
Nice try at covering though.
Except tat te UN levies exactly zero taxes (how would they do that anyway?), really does quite a lot, and this proposal isn't a tax.
So yes. Very insightful, except for being completely wrong.
I've always had a problem understanding the whole "objectifying women" meme. I'm sure some guys (and probably some women) view some, most or even all women (and/or men) as objects. Do you really think they see them more as objects if they're in a skirt and smiling then if they're in jeans and frowning?
If person A treats another person as an object that's a problem with person A. The "objectifying women" thing seems to be more about a certain political group that opposes almost everything because they heard once that it might be bad.
Go to another conference and there are lots of booth dudes on the floor in suits with tanned skin and whitened teeth. Are they being objectified? Should we ban them? What about actors and actresses, many of whom are more attractive than average?
An eV is a Je/C, which, though technically not an SI unit, is a lot closer than a pound. It IS essentially a metric system unit - it's used with the metric prefixes. The kcal is also a metric system unit, predating the SI. The mol is similar to the eV: defined based on SI units and fundamental quantities and used with metric prefixes. Ditto with Hartrees.
So yes, my one liner wasn't perfectly accurate, but pretty close.
Who is this "we?" The same "we" that pays attractive women high to very high wages so "we" can look at them? I don't think "we" is very bright, and "we" is the one getting trained.
Assuming you mean "orders of magnitude," you might want to familiarize yourself with what that actually means. 80 tonnes and 20 tonnes are not different by an order of magnitude. Not even one.
Also, the 80 tonne estimate seems to be from the distant past. More recent estimates are in the high 20s, so the difference with this estimate isn't even 50%.
Of course it was. Nobody does science in pounds, not even in the US. If you submitted a paper with non-metric units the editor would tell you to fix it.
And you would be wrong. From TFA:
The plural of anecdote is [sociological,anthropological] data.
The plural of anecdote is definitely not data.
And the mice who were randomly selected for the coffee vs. placebo group?
Boo on you. You just ruined somebody's day. He got to sound all knowledgeable by saying "correlation does not equal causation!" and then you interfered with facts and stuff.
It's quite possible to correct for multiple comparisons when you're doing a study, careless researchers just don't do it.
A proper clinical trial is one of the most reliable forms of data. Real clinical trials are registered, including their hypothese and analysis methods, so that you can't get away with testing a bunch of things and forgetting to mention all the ones that didn't work out.