Have you tried it any time recently? I haven't had a noticeable delay using Skype on a notebook in ages. There used to be a delay when I was using Fring with an iPhone 3G, but the official Skype app also works with no noticeable delay.
There's also the few million that Apple have already sold. And despite your assertion, the devices reviewed in the article are not at all equivalent to an iPad. The 7" ones are significantly smaller, at least one is quite a bit less powerful, and they're phones, which will require contracts and the involvement of cell companies. Of the 10" ones, one has an Atom processor and runs Windows!
Several of them are experimenting with their own custom interfaces, one runs only an old version of Android, and even Android itself may not be as popular a UI as the iPhone OS on a tablet.
I thought eInk was a great idea. Then I went and tried an eInk reader. I don't know if its actually necessary, but the flashing they do when you turn pages completely ruins it. The contrast is kind of crappy too.
Aristocracy involves those with particular parents, or those who render extraordinary service to their country, getting special rights. The US embraced the idea that these people should be tossed out and money be the arbiter of social class and special rights.
You've left off "excellent training." German drivers pay thousands for training to drive on the unlimited parts of the autobahn. American drivers cough up what, twenty bucks, to take the test designed so pretty much everyone can pass?
Those ratings are for the tire, new and undamaged, sitting in the shop.
If you read the actual specs that go along with the rating, basically any damage, use or repairs on the tire invalidate the rating.
I agree though, tires falling apart (unless you're a semi, which seem to regularly blow up their tires) are less of a worry than the driver falling apart.
I think the journalist invented the amino acid thing. The rest of the article sounds like it's talking about proteins - how do you turn amino acids into proteins without proteins to do the assembly?
What people don't understand is that very few experiments actually produce negative results. What they do is fail to produce positive results.
If your paper is based on statistics, which it should usually be, failing to find a significant positive result is not the same thing as showing that the null hypothesis is significantly likely. Few experiments are actually powered to produce actual negative results, and even fewer are ever properly analyzed for that purpose.
Negative results are very useful, yes. Inconclusive results usually aren't.
My head hurts. You took the correct phrase in the summary "its (plural) crtics' (plural possessive)" and turned it into the mind bending "it's (contraction - it is) critics (plural)". Twice. With bold face.
String theory makes a bunch of testable predictions.
What it doesn't do (yet) is make any easily testable novel predictions. They all require incredibly powerful accelerators, access to black holes, or similar extreme situations. Which is not particularly surprising, because where string theory differs from GR and QM is in the extreme environments in which the two existing theories break down. In ordinary environments string theory predicts (where you can do the math) the same things as QM or GR (as appropriate).
A lot of string theory research looks for clever ways of testing the theory without having to travel to a black hole or make an accelerator the size of the universe. Of course, this hypothetical clever experiment would likely also explicitly falsify GR and/or QM....
Alternately, since string theory tries to explain everything with a very few (ideally 1) input parameters, you could show it's superiority by, for example, deriving the masses of the known particles. Those masses, all of them, are input parameters to the standard model. There's a lot of interest in doing that as well.
As my English professor used to say, you've discovered your prejudices. Or in your case, maybe your automatic defensive reaction. You sound very much like one of the crazies who gets upset if someone dares to use the pronoun "he" as a gender neutral pronoun.
The authors specify precisely what they mean by "heavy drinker" as well as "moderate drinker" and "abstainer," and, although I haven't looked up the references, it sounds like they're using terminology that is fairly well established in the field. You're projecting your own cultural bias onto not only the rest of the world, but the scientific world (this is an international journal).
I think you need to take a couple of deep breaths. Maybe have a drink. Or three. You'll live longer, and feel better.
No, it is not moralizing. You just interpret it that way, because you see drinking as negative. If I said "heavy contributor to charity" is that bad too?
It is very common, even in scientific papers, to use a fairly fuzzy adjective like "heavy" to describe something in the paper, but define the use of that adjective on the first use.
Are Americans really hung up on drinking? Haven't gotten over prohibition or something? I don't think an over-average drinker here would bat an eye at being called a "heavy drinker."
Three drinks a day being "heavy" is likely dictated by actual drinking statistics, not by someone who decided what is "okay."
Averaging three drinks a day, every day, is probably above the mean alcohol consumption rate in most places.
As a quick check, a standard drink is 14 g of pure alcohol. That is 11 mL. Europe has the highest average alcohol intake, at 10 L / person year. That comes out to 2.5 drinks per day. The Americas average about 6 L / person year, or 1.5 drinks per day.
There are spam blockers on some of my accounts, yes. The difference is, that mail isn't being "read" by one of the largest advertising companies the world has ever known.
You said you don't have time to take a proper look for cars overtaking you. What's imposing the time limit? Are you stealing a glance back immediately before you turn? In that case, look behind you earlier to see if there are any cars. A car isn't going to instantly overtake you from around the last corner. If you need, take a good look, then another right before you turn to reassure yourself.
No, a biker should be changing lanes, on a multi-lane road, in advance of turning. You are a vehicle. When it's safe to do so you can hang out on the right side and let cars pass you. When it's not safe to do so, such as when you're changing lanes or making turns, you need to take up the whole lane. Just like a car, if you need to turn left you need to change lanes from wherever you are (probably the rightmost lane) to the leftmost in advance of the turn. As you're turning you should be in the middle of the turning lane so nobody tries to zip by you (in which case it's much less important if there's anyone behind) and as you're turning or preparing to turn you can go as slowly as you want. Just like a car. Making them slow down makes a collision less likely than if you're just flying around the corner trying to stay out of their way.
You mentioned that your glasses don't cover your field of view. You can certainly get glasses that cover essentially all of your useful field of view. If really can't shoulder check because of your glasses then you need to get glasses that cover a larger portion of your view. Same as if you were driving.
Biking is the same as driving, except that you're probably going slower, which gives you more time to do things like shoulder checking. When necessary you have to take up your space and make the other vehicles on the road treat you as one of their own. Which also means you have to obey all the same rules, of course.
If you're actually depending on sound to warn you that somebody is overtaking, you will get hurt, fake engine noise speakers or not.
Everything is hypothetical and unproven. But you can accumulate evidence until it's really, really, really improbable that something isn't true. Everything he said falls into that category. Except possibly the constant part.
Uh yeah, I'm pretty sure they did the statistical analysis. Besides being absolutely required to get a paper published, it's likely the only way you'd ever see anything in the first place. The data isn't going to be a nice straight line that all of a sudden takes a dip, obvious to anyone who looks at the graph.
Slashdot Mirror
Free primary sources? Of what kind?
Have you heard the word "hypothesis?"
Have you tried it any time recently? I haven't had a noticeable delay using Skype on a notebook in ages. There used to be a delay when I was using Fring with an iPhone 3G, but the official Skype app also works with no noticeable delay.
You're not on Twitter.
It makes it a video. And videos are cool.
Showing that the submitter doesn't even understand the very basics of security.
There's also the few million that Apple have already sold. And despite your assertion, the devices reviewed in the article are not at all equivalent to an iPad. The 7" ones are significantly smaller, at least one is quite a bit less powerful, and they're phones, which will require contracts and the involvement of cell companies. Of the 10" ones, one has an Atom processor and runs Windows!
Several of them are experimenting with their own custom interfaces, one runs only an old version of Android, and even Android itself may not be as popular a UI as the iPhone OS on a tablet.
Didn't read the articles hey?
Uh, I think you might have overlooked a possibility or two.
I thought eInk was a great idea. Then I went and tried an eInk reader. I don't know if its actually necessary, but the flashing they do when you turn pages completely ruins it. The contrast is kind of crappy too.
It's just as big but pointing the wrong way? Yeah, sounds about right.
Aristocracy involves those with particular parents, or those who render extraordinary service to their country, getting special rights. The US embraced the idea that these people should be tossed out and money be the arbiter of social class and special rights.
You've left off "excellent training." German drivers pay thousands for training to drive on the unlimited parts of the autobahn. American drivers cough up what, twenty bucks, to take the test designed so pretty much everyone can pass?
Those ratings are for the tire, new and undamaged, sitting in the shop.
If you read the actual specs that go along with the rating, basically any damage, use or repairs on the tire invalidate the rating.
I agree though, tires falling apart (unless you're a semi, which seem to regularly blow up their tires) are less of a worry than the driver falling apart.
I think the journalist invented the amino acid thing. The rest of the article sounds like it's talking about proteins - how do you turn amino acids into proteins without proteins to do the assembly?
What people don't understand is that very few experiments actually produce negative results. What they do is fail to produce positive results.
If your paper is based on statistics, which it should usually be, failing to find a significant positive result is not the same thing as showing that the null hypothesis is significantly likely. Few experiments are actually powered to produce actual negative results, and even fewer are ever properly analyzed for that purpose.
Negative results are very useful, yes. Inconclusive results usually aren't.
My head hurts. You took the correct phrase in the summary "its (plural) crtics' (plural possessive)" and turned it into the mind bending "it's (contraction - it is) critics (plural)". Twice. With bold face.
String theory makes a bunch of testable predictions.
What it doesn't do (yet) is make any easily testable novel predictions. They all require incredibly powerful accelerators, access to black holes, or similar extreme situations. Which is not particularly surprising, because where string theory differs from GR and QM is in the extreme environments in which the two existing theories break down. In ordinary environments string theory predicts (where you can do the math) the same things as QM or GR (as appropriate).
A lot of string theory research looks for clever ways of testing the theory without having to travel to a black hole or make an accelerator the size of the universe. Of course, this hypothetical clever experiment would likely also explicitly falsify GR and/or QM....
Alternately, since string theory tries to explain everything with a very few (ideally 1) input parameters, you could show it's superiority by, for example, deriving the masses of the known particles. Those masses, all of them, are input parameters to the standard model. There's a lot of interest in doing that as well.
As my English professor used to say, you've discovered your prejudices. Or in your case, maybe your automatic defensive reaction. You sound very much like one of the crazies who gets upset if someone dares to use the pronoun "he" as a gender neutral pronoun.
The authors specify precisely what they mean by "heavy drinker" as well as "moderate drinker" and "abstainer," and, although I haven't looked up the references, it sounds like they're using terminology that is fairly well established in the field. You're projecting your own cultural bias onto not only the rest of the world, but the scientific world (this is an international journal).
I think you need to take a couple of deep breaths. Maybe have a drink. Or three. You'll live longer, and feel better.
No, it is not moralizing. You just interpret it that way, because you see drinking as negative. If I said "heavy contributor to charity" is that bad too?
It is very common, even in scientific papers, to use a fairly fuzzy adjective like "heavy" to describe something in the paper, but define the use of that adjective on the first use.
Are Americans really hung up on drinking? Haven't gotten over prohibition or something? I don't think an over-average drinker here would bat an eye at being called a "heavy drinker."
Three drinks a day being "heavy" is likely dictated by actual drinking statistics, not by someone who decided what is "okay."
Averaging three drinks a day, every day, is probably above the mean alcohol consumption rate in most places.
As a quick check, a standard drink is 14 g of pure alcohol. That is 11 mL. Europe has the highest average alcohol intake, at 10 L / person year. That comes out to 2.5 drinks per day. The Americas average about 6 L / person year, or 1.5 drinks per day.
Sorry to rain on your outrage.
No, it's not meaningless. Heavy drinkers are less likely to die at any particular moment you choose to look at.
Quit being pedantic. There are plenty of actually outrageous things science journalists say.
There are spam blockers on some of my accounts, yes. The difference is, that mail isn't being "read" by one of the largest advertising companies the world has ever known.
You said you don't have time to take a proper look for cars overtaking you. What's imposing the time limit? Are you stealing a glance back immediately before you turn? In that case, look behind you earlier to see if there are any cars. A car isn't going to instantly overtake you from around the last corner. If you need, take a good look, then another right before you turn to reassure yourself.
No, a biker should be changing lanes, on a multi-lane road, in advance of turning. You are a vehicle. When it's safe to do so you can hang out on the right side and let cars pass you. When it's not safe to do so, such as when you're changing lanes or making turns, you need to take up the whole lane. Just like a car, if you need to turn left you need to change lanes from wherever you are (probably the rightmost lane) to the leftmost in advance of the turn. As you're turning you should be in the middle of the turning lane so nobody tries to zip by you (in which case it's much less important if there's anyone behind) and as you're turning or preparing to turn you can go as slowly as you want. Just like a car. Making them slow down makes a collision less likely than if you're just flying around the corner trying to stay out of their way.
You mentioned that your glasses don't cover your field of view. You can certainly get glasses that cover essentially all of your useful field of view. If really can't shoulder check because of your glasses then you need to get glasses that cover a larger portion of your view. Same as if you were driving.
Biking is the same as driving, except that you're probably going slower, which gives you more time to do things like shoulder checking. When necessary you have to take up your space and make the other vehicles on the road treat you as one of their own. Which also means you have to obey all the same rules, of course.
If you're actually depending on sound to warn you that somebody is overtaking, you will get hurt, fake engine noise speakers or not.
Everything is hypothetical and unproven. But you can accumulate evidence until it's really, really, really improbable that something isn't true. Everything he said falls into that category. Except possibly the constant part.
Uh yeah, I'm pretty sure they did the statistical analysis. Besides being absolutely required to get a paper published, it's likely the only way you'd ever see anything in the first place. The data isn't going to be a nice straight line that all of a sudden takes a dip, obvious to anyone who looks at the graph.