Maybe 10% of the population are atheists, but they don't have an "unshakeable belief" in it. More than 10% of the population are Christians, but they don't all have an unshakeable belief either.
Directionality doesn't require a point of reference either. The object itself doesn't count as a reference point.
Velocity requires a reference point - if you're floating in deep space with nothing around you, you can't tell if you have any velocity. The question itself doesn't make sense without some other object against which to measure your motion. Acceleration isn't like that.
Much as Internet critics like to point out the contrary, Columbus "proving" the world was round isn't particularly mythic. It's by no means unlikely that the common man of the day (which all seamen were) was far from convinced that the world is a globe. Various books even suggest that many authors, the intellectual elite, referred to the world as being flat.
It was certainly known by some that the world is a globe, but by no means all. Columbus purportedly sailing around it would have "proved" that it was round to the less intellectual people. Of course, Magellan actually provided the practical proof when he really did circumnavigate the planet.
Where's the evidence his treatment is harmless? Don't forget to include the harm of people seeking his treatment and not getting or not being able to pay for an actual treatment that does work.
Come on, pony up some evidence instead of just spewing meaningless rhetoric.
Despite what was reported in the media, I suspect the voicemail getting checked suggested to the police that the girl was FREE, not alive. Murderous kidnappers tend not to let you check your voicemail. Runaway kids and estranged dad or crazy uncle (the majority of kidnappers) just might.
I guess you're a little fuzzy on what evidence is. An interview with a guy about social security isn't. Neither is your own personal rant about your country's (admittedly broken) medical system. And no, getting a treatment approved for a phase I, II or III trial isn't really evidence it works either. Nor is it evidence the treatment is safe, contrary to your assertion.
The FDA regulates what treatments can be recommend and/or provided by health professionals or others giving medical advice. in order for one of these people say a treatment works, it has to be shown to be effective. That seems perfectly reasonable.
If you want to drink urine for your cancer, go for it. The FDA doesn't care.
Research code should be written with good practices if possible but it should ALWAYS be rewritten when it becomes something more than research code.
Research is trying things out to see if they work. The code will always be messy, confusing and convoluted to some extent. Taking that as a package and turning it into some sort of product is silly.
I have a degree in CS and just recently helped commercialize something that came out of my PhD. The tech transfer company blew their budget hiring a development house to clean up and modify my research code for release. After six months they ran out of money without a working product. I rewrote it in a week from scratch, much faster, smaller, simpler and more maintainable than the research chicken scratch ever could have been.
I was curious what kind of woo was behind the belly fat ads so I followed the link until it wanted to charge for a PDF, then went and found the document on the pirate bay. Once you cut through all the crap, basically the secret is "exercise."
Sure you are. If you want to drink urine or eat peach pits for your cancer you're free to go ahead and do that. What you're not free to do is call yourself a doctor and tell other people with cancer that drinking urine and eating peach pits will cure them.
Sounds like you could use someone to protect you. If you want to take "antineoplastons" you're welcome to do so (they seem to be found in urine). Governments regulate people who give you medical advice and prescribe treatment.
I do like how your "evidence" prominently includes a Dr Oz endorsement though.
Those images are major diagnostic tools. They need to be stored securely, both against loss and theft, and displayed accurately so nobody misses anything or sees something that isn't there.
Not at all. An eternal copyright is when you can copyright the SOURCE material again, and again, and again.
If Snow White goes out of copyright and Disney releases a BluRay, let them copyright the BluRay. If they add enough extra value and keep their price reasonable enough that people are willing to pay it, then no problem. If not, then someone else has every right to go and make their own BluRay from the original masters, which should be archived somewhere accessible for that purpose. Or just mass produce and sell the now non-copyrighted DVDs or VHS tapes everyone bought.
No, it doesn't. There's lots of stuff that's public domain but you just can't get because nobody is willing to go to the effort to republish it. There is no obligation on the part of anybody to make anything available for your sanctimonious, entitled convenience.
Yes, scanning a book or paper, currently, in the US doesn't entitle you to a new copyright. Perhaps it should. Then we'd actually have access to a lot of this public domain material.
PLoS is respected, but it's far from the preeminent journal in any field. It is getting better, rapidly though. It isn't an option in my field, but the model is promising.
Colour generally costs, but I've never submitted to a journal that wanted to charge for black and white pages, unless you went over the limit. And that includes Science and Nature.
I stand by my statement - it would help a lot of the libraries kicked a little of their journal budgets towards PLoS and the like to reduce publication charges.
That's what we've got now, because "maximum volume" is measured as maximum sound intensity. The proposal is to measure it as average sound intensity instead, and normalize everything appropriately. Since average sound intensity more closely approximates what we perceive as volume, everything sounds the same loudness, regardless of compression.
Because you can't, easily, at least not without introducing a delay into the audio stream and distorting it.
In order to properly correct perceived loudness you have to have the whole song/commercial/whatever. You can certainly do it easily enough for prerecorded shows and music.
Exactly. And that's the key. If you sell MP3s, or stream them, normalize all of them to the new standard, which actually measures something approximating perceived loudness. Now everyone's music sounds the same in terms of loudness, whether or not it's compressed at the studio.
It isn't. Now that they've all maxed everything out, if you DON'T compress your song will be quieter than everyone else. Not what you want.
The article suggests that now is a good time to implement this standard because with digital distribution if all the distributors (Apple, Pandora, etc.) adhere to it, applying compression at the studio will just make your music sound bad, instead of loud and bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe 10% of the population are atheists, but they don't have an "unshakeable belief" in it. More than 10% of the population are Christians, but they don't all have an unshakeable belief either.
Directionality doesn't require a point of reference either. The object itself doesn't count as a reference point.
Velocity requires a reference point - if you're floating in deep space with nothing around you, you can't tell if you have any velocity. The question itself doesn't make sense without some other object against which to measure your motion. Acceleration isn't like that.
Acceleration doesn't require a point of reference.
Sure, compare education with retail. THAT's perhaps where your problem lies.
Have a look at where other professionals park. You don't think physicians and lawyers park far away do you?
Much as Internet critics like to point out the contrary, Columbus "proving" the world was round isn't particularly mythic. It's by no means unlikely that the common man of the day (which all seamen were) was far from convinced that the world is a globe. Various books even suggest that many authors, the intellectual elite, referred to the world as being flat.
It was certainly known by some that the world is a globe, but by no means all. Columbus purportedly sailing around it would have "proved" that it was round to the less intellectual people. Of course, Magellan actually provided the practical proof when he really did circumnavigate the planet.
It's not habitable. With a payback period of 11 years, it's doing pretty well, particularly for a renewable energy plant.
Where's the evidence his treatment is harmless? Don't forget to include the harm of people seeking his treatment and not getting or not being able to pay for an actual treatment that does work.
Come on, pony up some evidence instead of just spewing meaningless rhetoric.
Despite what was reported in the media, I suspect the voicemail getting checked suggested to the police that the girl was FREE, not alive. Murderous kidnappers tend not to let you check your voicemail. Runaway kids and estranged dad or crazy uncle (the majority of kidnappers) just might.
Two works of fiction. Don't forget the documentary Harry Potter.
Ah, tech CEOs can be idiots too.
You're very determined to avoid the issue of whether Burzynski is a fraud hey?
Oh, you're giving me evidence to support your conspiracy theory! Wonderful. Just bypassing the issue of the craziness of your main example, hey?
And no, it's not my country.
I guess you're a little fuzzy on what evidence is. An interview with a guy about social security isn't. Neither is your own personal rant about your country's (admittedly broken) medical system. And no, getting a treatment approved for a phase I, II or III trial isn't really evidence it works either. Nor is it evidence the treatment is safe, contrary to your assertion.
The FDA regulates what treatments can be recommend and/or provided by health professionals or others giving medical advice. in order for one of these people say a treatment works, it has to be shown to be effective. That seems perfectly reasonable.
If you want to drink urine for your cancer, go for it. The FDA doesn't care.
Research code should be written with good practices if possible but it should ALWAYS be rewritten when it becomes something more than research code.
Research is trying things out to see if they work. The code will always be messy, confusing and convoluted to some extent. Taking that as a package and turning it into some sort of product is silly.
I have a degree in CS and just recently helped commercialize something that came out of my PhD. The tech transfer company blew their budget hiring a development house to clean up and modify my research code for release. After six months they ran out of money without a working product. I rewrote it in a week from scratch, much faster, smaller, simpler and more maintainable than the research chicken scratch ever could have been.
I was curious what kind of woo was behind the belly fat ads so I followed the link until it wanted to charge for a PDF, then went and found the document on the pirate bay. Once you cut through all the crap, basically the secret is "exercise."
Sure you are. If you want to drink urine or eat peach pits for your cancer you're free to go ahead and do that. What you're not free to do is call yourself a doctor and tell other people with cancer that drinking urine and eating peach pits will cure them.
Sounds like you could use someone to protect you. If you want to take "antineoplastons" you're welcome to do so (they seem to be found in urine). Governments regulate people who give you medical advice and prescribe treatment.
I do like how your "evidence" prominently includes a Dr Oz endorsement though.
Those images are major diagnostic tools. They need to be stored securely, both against loss and theft, and displayed accurately so nobody misses anything or sees something that isn't there.
Not at all. An eternal copyright is when you can copyright the SOURCE material again, and again, and again.
If Snow White goes out of copyright and Disney releases a BluRay, let them copyright the BluRay. If they add enough extra value and keep their price reasonable enough that people are willing to pay it, then no problem. If not, then someone else has every right to go and make their own BluRay from the original masters, which should be archived somewhere accessible for that purpose. Or just mass produce and sell the now non-copyrighted DVDs or VHS tapes everyone bought.
"Actually yes it does mean exactly that."
No, it doesn't. There's lots of stuff that's public domain but you just can't get because nobody is willing to go to the effort to republish it. There is no obligation on the part of anybody to make anything available for your sanctimonious, entitled convenience.
Yes, scanning a book or paper, currently, in the US doesn't entitle you to a new copyright. Perhaps it should. Then we'd actually have access to a lot of this public domain material.
PLoS is respected, but it's far from the preeminent journal in any field. It is getting better, rapidly though. It isn't an option in my field, but the model is promising.
Colour generally costs, but I've never submitted to a journal that wanted to charge for black and white pages, unless you went over the limit. And that includes Science and Nature.
I stand by my statement - it would help a lot of the libraries kicked a little of their journal budgets towards PLoS and the like to reduce publication charges.
That's what we've got now, because "maximum volume" is measured as maximum sound intensity. The proposal is to measure it as average sound intensity instead, and normalize everything appropriately. Since average sound intensity more closely approximates what we perceive as volume, everything sounds the same loudness, regardless of compression.
Because you can't, easily, at least not without introducing a delay into the audio stream and distorting it.
In order to properly correct perceived loudness you have to have the whole song/commercial/whatever. You can certainly do it easily enough for prerecorded shows and music.
If they're using autotune in the first place, I really doubt you want to hear them not using it. Even in passing.
Exactly. And that's the key. If you sell MP3s, or stream them, normalize all of them to the new standard, which actually measures something approximating perceived loudness. Now everyone's music sounds the same in terms of loudness, whether or not it's compressed at the studio.
It isn't. Now that they've all maxed everything out, if you DON'T compress your song will be quieter than everyone else. Not what you want.
The article suggests that now is a good time to implement this standard because with digital distribution if all the distributors (Apple, Pandora, etc.) adhere to it, applying compression at the studio will just make your music sound bad, instead of loud and bad.