The statistical power of n=12 depends on the effect size. What such a small sample means though is that any small (or not so small) errors like poor analysis, bad sampling, or poor blinding are more likely to have a meaningful effect.
What is concerning is that in vivo MR spectroscopy is a very noisy technique, and distinguishing GABA and glx are among the harder things you can choose to measure. It's difficult to believe that they could reliably see differences in such a small group.
The interest on those loans is probably a lot higher though. I don't know exactly how much a margin trading interest rate in 1929 was, but mid single digits looks like a reasonable guess. Most credit cards are around 20%.
Number of users isn't innovation. Making a photo disappear on a timer is (or was at some point) innovation, but just barely. Yes, Snapchat is (lots of people still use Snapchat) valuable because of the number of eyeballs staring at it. But the article held it up as an example of innovation. It's not.
Clearly if I could just give you an example of an innovation today I wouldn't, I'd go and found a company and sell it to you instead. But I think a good innovation, and one we really need, will be something that doesn't depend on selling your users to advertisers.
Yeah... maybe the bar for what we call innovation has gotten a bit ridiculously low. Real innovation takes more than a weekend and a case of Mountain Dew for a competitor to copy.
The "market cap" is highly misleading. The important number is, how much actual money has been exchanged for bitcoin. Most of those coins were mined or purchased when they were very much cheaper. That is the amount of money that could be "lost" if they crashed.
"Lost" because it's not actually lost, it's just in the pockets of people who were smart enough to sell before the crash.
$1 million / coin works out to around 10 trillion dollars, assuming half the bitcoins are lost. That's about 1/6 of all the money (most of it electronic) that exists in the world. It's certainly going to suck when all of the money in the world is in a form that is limited to single digit numbers of transactions per second.
This was a reputable person who made this estimate? Reputed for what?
Quite the opposite I think. The market for bitcoin is basically assuming that $30 billion worth is lost forever. No worries, lost bitcoins just increase the value of the remaining ones.
The really scary thing is what if those $30 billion dollars worth of bitcoins suddenly become found? Imagine if some anonymous geek suddenly showed up with four or five trillion dollars (~40% of the total existing) that nobody knew about. Now your savings are worth half what they were yesterday.
I'm sure the GP doesn't care enough about ASDFnz to put in the effort, and also doesn't have the resources of a government.
There are some governments who would really like to speak to Satoshi though. If he were to spend some of his bitcoins, which are all very easily identifiable as his, he'd have to show up at a location (cameras), sell to an exchange (IP + bank account or other financial info) or order something (address or PO box + cameras).
He could launder them, slowly, but even then he'd have to leave an IP address trail which could potentially be backtracked by a sufficiently motivated government.
You're conveniently forgetting that both the tobacco cartel and (it seems) the sugar sellers seem to have willfully covered up evidence that their products are harmful.
If I ran a restaurant and served you poison, particularly while claiming the food was perfectly safe and even good for you, would you just say "buyer beware" and go about your business?
Because if you owned $8 billion plus in bitcoins we would expect that you'd cash them in at some point, and that would be bad for all the Slashdot editors who are heavily invested in bitcoins.
However, if Musk owns $8 billion in bitcoins we might hope he deleted them, avoiding the sword of Damocles (except for all the other early adopters who own bazillions of dollars worth).
Of course it's gambling. The question is only whether or not to set an age limit or other regulations. Baseball cards were originally distributed in cigarette packages... aimed at adults.
Personally, I think that when baseball cards left the gum wrapper and started being sold as a product on their own they should have been restricted according to regular gambling regulations.
Long post. Not much relevant until the end. When nobody knows what's going on, you require scientists to do research to figure out what's going on. That requires money. No money, you continue not knowing what's going on.
Slashdot user Maury Markowitz apparently think's commercial fusion is impossible, and impossible because physics. Cool. That's now part of the Internet record, so we can see if you were right. There seem to be a few thousand actual physicists who think there's a worthwhile chance you're wrong.
Here's why. The projections in 1976 seem to have been overly optimistic regarding our minimum commitment to research, but possibly overly pessimistic regarding our ability to perform in the worse-than-worst-case scenario.
None of the universities I went to in Canada played the waiver game. Everyone pays tuition (which is much more reasonable in the US) but grad students tend to get theirs covered by their stipend or as payment for TAing. So they already pay taxes on their full income, including tuition. Then the tuition fees are specifically deductable.
I disagree, from experience. If you set up someone's computer with Linux they don't notice, or care, but they get frustrated when they want to change their desktop image, colour scheme, screensaver, mouse tracking speed or some other trivial setting and can't figure out what icon to click to do it.
Exactly my point. There are so many different, potentially incompatible, and UI discordant ways to adjust things. That's fine, but what's lacking is a unified system. Some of the distros have tried, but they've mostly failed.
The windows control panel (or whatever they call it these days) is a bit of a UI nightmare, but you can configure whatever a regular user is likely to want from there. Ditto with OS X's Preferences. Linux has everything except a nice, consistent, graphical, go-to, built-in place for the point and click crowd to fiddle with settings.
Linux still isn't ready for any desktop it isn't installed on. It IS installed on lots of desktops in places like research labs, mine included. But if it's going to make it to anybody else's desk it needs some basic things fixed. I don't know if it's possible to do something as simple as configure a graphics driver in Ubuntu's GUI, but it's certainly not easy.
Everything else works perfectly fine, but none of the GUI systems seem to offer a user friendly way for command line averse users to fiddle with their system settings.
"Note how those Indie-Games you like so much all come with mediocre graphics (if they're not even one of those "pixel graphics" rubbish that for some odd reason is so en vogue right now) and generally tech specs from the 2000s?"
Nah. A couple of examples: Kerbal Space Program, particularly with the community visual mods, is beautiful. Eve Online is also essentially an indie game, although admittedly from a more established company, and it's not only beautiful but has kept pace with graphics development over the last 15 years.
The problem is that anybody who's successful eventually has to bring in more people to help maintain things. Or they get offers they can't refuse from the majors. Eventually they sell out to the kind of corporation you describe. The solution is fairly simple: indie developers need to start specifying in the contracts they make with purchasers, limits on what the game will do in the future. No lootboxes. No sales to EA. That not only provides a commitment to their early adopters, but also makes them unattractive to the big corps.
Slashdot Mirror
I was referring to the attitude on Slashdot.
Go back and read some of the comments on the stories about those things. Compare to this one.
How we long for 1997, when we only wished stuff like this would happen.
The statistical power of n=12 depends on the effect size. What such a small sample means though is that any small (or not so small) errors like poor analysis, bad sampling, or poor blinding are more likely to have a meaningful effect.
What is concerning is that in vivo MR spectroscopy is a very noisy technique, and distinguishing GABA and glx are among the harder things you can choose to measure. It's difficult to believe that they could reliably see differences in such a small group.
As far as I can tell, the blockchain bit is clickbait. They're talking about public key encryption and signing.
Cheaper to just get a cheap polyester leisure suit. Or polar fleece sweater.
The interest on those loans is probably a lot higher though. I don't know exactly how much a margin trading interest rate in 1929 was, but mid single digits looks like a reasonable guess. Most credit cards are around 20%.
Sounds like VISA.
Number of users isn't innovation. Making a photo disappear on a timer is (or was at some point) innovation, but just barely. Yes, Snapchat is (lots of people still use Snapchat) valuable because of the number of eyeballs staring at it. But the article held it up as an example of innovation. It's not.
Clearly if I could just give you an example of an innovation today I wouldn't, I'd go and found a company and sell it to you instead. But I think a good innovation, and one we really need, will be something that doesn't depend on selling your users to advertisers.
"Facebook has simply copied its features."
Yeah... maybe the bar for what we call innovation has gotten a bit ridiculously low. Real innovation takes more than a weekend and a case of Mountain Dew for a competitor to copy.
The "market cap" is highly misleading. The important number is, how much actual money has been exchanged for bitcoin. Most of those coins were mined or purchased when they were very much cheaper. That is the amount of money that could be "lost" if they crashed.
"Lost" because it's not actually lost, it's just in the pockets of people who were smart enough to sell before the crash.
So you're saying it might be a good idea to buy some ASICs or GPUs and wait for the crash?
$1 million / coin works out to around 10 trillion dollars, assuming half the bitcoins are lost. That's about 1/6 of all the money (most of it electronic) that exists in the world. It's certainly going to suck when all of the money in the world is in a form that is limited to single digit numbers of transactions per second.
This was a reputable person who made this estimate? Reputed for what?
Quite the opposite I think. The market for bitcoin is basically assuming that $30 billion worth is lost forever. No worries, lost bitcoins just increase the value of the remaining ones.
The really scary thing is what if those $30 billion dollars worth of bitcoins suddenly become found? Imagine if some anonymous geek suddenly showed up with four or five trillion dollars (~40% of the total existing) that nobody knew about. Now your savings are worth half what they were yesterday.
I'm sure the GP doesn't care enough about ASDFnz to put in the effort, and also doesn't have the resources of a government.
There are some governments who would really like to speak to Satoshi though. If he were to spend some of his bitcoins, which are all very easily identifiable as his, he'd have to show up at a location (cameras), sell to an exchange (IP + bank account or other financial info) or order something (address or PO box + cameras).
He could launder them, slowly, but even then he'd have to leave an IP address trail which could potentially be backtracked by a sufficiently motivated government.
You're conveniently forgetting that both the tobacco cartel and (it seems) the sugar sellers seem to have willfully covered up evidence that their products are harmful.
If I ran a restaurant and served you poison, particularly while claiming the food was perfectly safe and even good for you, would you just say "buyer beware" and go about your business?
Because if you owned $8 billion plus in bitcoins we would expect that you'd cash them in at some point, and that would be bad for all the Slashdot editors who are heavily invested in bitcoins.
However, if Musk owns $8 billion in bitcoins we might hope he deleted them, avoiding the sword of Damocles (except for all the other early adopters who own bazillions of dollars worth).
Of course it's gambling. The question is only whether or not to set an age limit or other regulations. Baseball cards were originally distributed in cigarette packages... aimed at adults.
Personally, I think that when baseball cards left the gum wrapper and started being sold as a product on their own they should have been restricted according to regular gambling regulations.
Long post. Not much relevant until the end. When nobody knows what's going on, you require scientists to do research to figure out what's going on. That requires money. No money, you continue not knowing what's going on.
Slashdot user Maury Markowitz apparently think's commercial fusion is impossible, and impossible because physics. Cool. That's now part of the Internet record, so we can see if you were right. There seem to be a few thousand actual physicists who think there's a worthwhile chance you're wrong.
Here's why. The projections in 1976 seem to have been overly optimistic regarding our minimum commitment to research, but possibly overly pessimistic regarding our ability to perform in the worse-than-worst-case scenario.
https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i...
None of the universities I went to in Canada played the waiver game. Everyone pays tuition (which is much more reasonable in the US) but grad students tend to get theirs covered by their stipend or as payment for TAing. So they already pay taxes on their full income, including tuition. Then the tuition fees are specifically deductable.
I disagree, from experience. If you set up someone's computer with Linux they don't notice, or care, but they get frustrated when they want to change their desktop image, colour scheme, screensaver, mouse tracking speed or some other trivial setting and can't figure out what icon to click to do it.
Exactly my point. There are so many different, potentially incompatible, and UI discordant ways to adjust things. That's fine, but what's lacking is a unified system. Some of the distros have tried, but they've mostly failed.
The windows control panel (or whatever they call it these days) is a bit of a UI nightmare, but you can configure whatever a regular user is likely to want from there. Ditto with OS X's Preferences. Linux has everything except a nice, consistent, graphical, go-to, built-in place for the point and click crowd to fiddle with settings.
Linux still isn't ready for any desktop it isn't installed on. It IS installed on lots of desktops in places like research labs, mine included. But if it's going to make it to anybody else's desk it needs some basic things fixed. I don't know if it's possible to do something as simple as configure a graphics driver in Ubuntu's GUI, but it's certainly not easy.
Everything else works perfectly fine, but none of the GUI systems seem to offer a user friendly way for command line averse users to fiddle with their system settings.
"Note how those Indie-Games you like so much all come with mediocre graphics (if they're not even one of those "pixel graphics" rubbish that for some odd reason is so en vogue right now) and generally tech specs from the 2000s?"
Nah. A couple of examples: Kerbal Space Program, particularly with the community visual mods, is beautiful. Eve Online is also essentially an indie game, although admittedly from a more established company, and it's not only beautiful but has kept pace with graphics development over the last 15 years.
The problem is that anybody who's successful eventually has to bring in more people to help maintain things. Or they get offers they can't refuse from the majors. Eventually they sell out to the kind of corporation you describe. The solution is fairly simple: indie developers need to start specifying in the contracts they make with purchasers, limits on what the game will do in the future. No lootboxes. No sales to EA. That not only provides a commitment to their early adopters, but also makes them unattractive to the big corps.
That 747 project was started a long time ago. Technology has advanced.
The US army has a vehicle mounted laser system that can shoot down artillery shells in flight. And that's 15 years old or so too.