A number of doctors do think dialysis should be better regulated than it is now, to ensure that patients are getting actually good care following scientifically validated practices. The two options are basically to regulate it as a drug, or as a medical device.
Whether there's a real distinction depends on whether Google is sharing its data with the NSA. If Google collects data and voluntarily turns it over to the NSA without a warrant, no law is broken, because Google is allowed to do whatever it wants with its data. And that results in the same practical effect as would've been the case if the NSA collected the data itself.
If you want to keep the two distinct, we need laws limiting what companies like Google are allowed to do with their data, such as when they're allowed to share it with the government.
The European aerospace industry seems to see the recent US ban on cooperation with the Chinese space program as an opportunity, and is stepping up cooperation.
In my case, I finally gave in to all those nag emails from LinkedIn when someone would add me, and signed up for an account. Have never used it since except to accept contact requests.
True, but that's before the unwashed masses got in, when the internet was a safe white-collar suburb comprised of universities, national labs, and large tech companies.
That was 1990s online culture, where parents would caution kids not to use their real name or info online, that kind of thing. Today, the parents are using their real name online themselves, and are more likely to demanding legislation against anonymous postings because of "cyberbullying" than to encourage anonymity.
On the other hand, LinkedIn's stock is way up from IPO, while Facebook's is quite a bit down, and pretty much nobody uses LinkedIn on purpose. So institutionalization isn't always bad.
He himself uses that term, in the quote that's right here in the Slashdot summary! It's not some kind of external appellation. He says:
Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming.
The 3-years-ago part I believe is referring to "Climategate", which Muller was very critical of. In addition, he's criticized the methodology of studies over the years, which has caused him to be viewed as something of a skeptic. In 2004, he wrote a now-famous editorial attacking the "hockey stick graph" for being "poor mathematics".
I agree it's been overplayed, though they do also fund a bunch of quite partisan stuff. There is some difference between the brothers as well: David Koch's foundation does a lot of fairly apolitical philanthropy, funding various art and science organizations, whereas Charles Koch's funds mainly libertarian and pro-business organizations.
The complaints about the Kochs go back a lot more than 10 years, though. The term "Kochtopus", implying a tentacle-like network of organizations grasping control of things, was coined by a Rothbardian libertarian in the '70s, who was angry about what he saw as Charles Koch trying to strong-arm other libertarian factions out of the libertarian movement, e.g. by kicking Rothbard out of the Cato Institute. Liberals picked up the term a bit later.
The Koch Brothers were among several funders, some of whom actually had decent motives. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab are not partisan conservatives. And FICER (the Gates-funded organization) actively depends on global warming existing, because their whole raison d'etre is pushing geoengineering as a solution, which would obviously be unnecessary if there were no problem for geoengineering to solve.
In fact that's probably why the outcome was actually scientifically legit: it was a study by actual scientists with a fairly broad set of backers, done at a university rather than in the private sector.
Re:Better Idea: Dancing with the Hollywood Squares
on
The Fall of 38 Studios
·
· Score: 2
It would also give basically free publicity, of an actually good kind. "Curt Schilling making a baseball MMO" gets you into both the tech press and the sports pages, and probably would build interest and anticipation even without having a product yet. "Curt Schilling is making a WoW clone" also produces some press, but more of the puzzled/curious kind.
Re:So what's the purpose of this story again?
on
The Fall of 38 Studios
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
He didn't create much of it: he bought existing companies and then ran them into the ground. Big Huge Games had jobs and products before 38 Studios bought it, and would, in retrospect, have been better off if Schilling hadn't bought 'em.
this experiment is derived from one flown on the Shuttle a few times already
In particular, goldfish and newts flew on STS-65 (1994). Not sure if complete life-cycle experiments have been done before. Some quick searching turns up this speculation (Google Books preview) as of 2003 that fish will soon become the first vertebrate to live a complete life cycle in space.
The enterprise-use-cases problem is partly for structural reasons. The IETF process makes it most natural to participate if you're a representative of a company, because it is very long, requires many meetings (some of them in-person), and therefore is most feasible to participate in if someone is paying your salary and travel to spend 3 years standardizing a protocol. Sometimes academics participate as well, if it's a proposed standard that is very close to their interests, enough so that it makes sense to take time that could be spent doing new research, and spend it on the IETF process instead. If you aren't in either of those positions, participation in an IETF process is likely to be economically challenging.
As far as condensation, perhaps it depends on the climate? A freezer-temp piece of metal in Arizona doesn't pick up much condensation, but one in Georgia will sweat all over the place.
I do agree that stories of it actually fixing modern drives are probably either apocryphal or obsolete.
Hah, indeed. Microsoft has lots of problems now, but it had a lot of problems before too! It's kind of funny that in 2012 the "old Microsoft" has become some kind of utopia looked back on as if it were driven by technologists in pursuit of technical excellence. In the 1990s, Slashdotters would surely not have thought that. Microsoft in, say, 1997 was not working towards "a common goal of excellence", but some very corporate-strategy driven ideas about where the PC market should go. Arguably that's true of much of what they did in the 1980s, as well.
I find cmd+left/right really awkward for that, because it's so often used for other things. For example, if you have the URL bar focused in a browser, cmd+left/right work to go to the beginning or end of the text field. But if you accidentally didn't have the URL bar focused, cmd+left becomes the browser's "back" button! And, it doesn't work at all in Terminal, where cmd+left/right cycle through terminals.
Six is a bit long, but not really outside the norm compared to how a typical large company would do it. One place I've worked, it took three years to fully roll out our Microsoft Exchange transition. And that's just desktop-oriented software for just regular employee usage. IT projects relating to anything more complex or business-critical could take more years. There are still mainframes operating at some places, and decade-long projects to replace them that haven't finished.
Sadly, that's how bespoke enterprise development goes in the private sector, too. Fortune 500 companies routinely pay huge amounts for this kind of stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Links to ebay sales of vintage games seems to be a minor theme of July 2012 for some reason.
A number of doctors do think dialysis should be better regulated than it is now, to ensure that patients are getting actually good care following scientifically validated practices. The two options are basically to regulate it as a drug, or as a medical device.
Whether there's a real distinction depends on whether Google is sharing its data with the NSA. If Google collects data and voluntarily turns it over to the NSA without a warrant, no law is broken, because Google is allowed to do whatever it wants with its data. And that results in the same practical effect as would've been the case if the NSA collected the data itself.
If you want to keep the two distinct, we need laws limiting what companies like Google are allowed to do with their data, such as when they're allowed to share it with the government.
The European aerospace industry seems to see the recent US ban on cooperation with the Chinese space program as an opportunity, and is stepping up cooperation.
In my case, I finally gave in to all those nag emails from LinkedIn when someone would add me, and signed up for an account. Have never used it since except to accept contact requests.
Under the Godwin Act of 2007 I'm afraid you are herby deported to the camps.
Sounds like a lot of effort on Apple's part that they probably don't care about.
True, but that's before the unwashed masses got in, when the internet was a safe white-collar suburb comprised of universities, national labs, and large tech companies.
That was 1990s online culture, where parents would caution kids not to use their real name or info online, that kind of thing. Today, the parents are using their real name online themselves, and are more likely to demanding legislation against anonymous postings because of "cyberbullying" than to encourage anonymity.
On the other hand, LinkedIn's stock is way up from IPO, while Facebook's is quite a bit down, and pretty much nobody uses LinkedIn on purpose. So institutionalization isn't always bad.
So it sounds like he's basically replicated the circa-2007 IPCC results and conclusions?
He himself uses that term, in the quote that's right here in the Slashdot summary! It's not some kind of external appellation. He says:
The 3-years-ago part I believe is referring to "Climategate", which Muller was very critical of. In addition, he's criticized the methodology of studies over the years, which has caused him to be viewed as something of a skeptic. In 2004, he wrote a now-famous editorial attacking the "hockey stick graph" for being "poor mathematics".
I agree it's been overplayed, though they do also fund a bunch of quite partisan stuff. There is some difference between the brothers as well: David Koch's foundation does a lot of fairly apolitical philanthropy, funding various art and science organizations, whereas Charles Koch's funds mainly libertarian and pro-business organizations.
The complaints about the Kochs go back a lot more than 10 years, though. The term "Kochtopus", implying a tentacle-like network of organizations grasping control of things, was coined by a Rothbardian libertarian in the '70s, who was angry about what he saw as Charles Koch trying to strong-arm other libertarian factions out of the libertarian movement, e.g. by kicking Rothbard out of the Cato Institute. Liberals picked up the term a bit later.
The Koch Brothers were among several funders, some of whom actually had decent motives. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab are not partisan conservatives. And FICER (the Gates-funded organization) actively depends on global warming existing, because their whole raison d'etre is pushing geoengineering as a solution, which would obviously be unnecessary if there were no problem for geoengineering to solve.
In fact that's probably why the outcome was actually scientifically legit: it was a study by actual scientists with a fairly broad set of backers, done at a university rather than in the private sector.
This certainly comes as a huge surprise...
It would also give basically free publicity, of an actually good kind. "Curt Schilling making a baseball MMO" gets you into both the tech press and the sports pages, and probably would build interest and anticipation even without having a product yet. "Curt Schilling is making a WoW clone" also produces some press, but more of the puzzled/curious kind.
He didn't create much of it: he bought existing companies and then ran them into the ground. Big Huge Games had jobs and products before 38 Studios bought it, and would, in retrospect, have been better off if Schilling hadn't bought 'em.
There've been other mammals in space before, though not cats. The third Spacelab mission (1985) took two monkeys and 24 rats in cages up.
In particular, goldfish and newts flew on STS-65 (1994). Not sure if complete life-cycle experiments have been done before. Some quick searching turns up this speculation (Google Books preview) as of 2003 that fish will soon become the first vertebrate to live a complete life cycle in space.
The enterprise-use-cases problem is partly for structural reasons. The IETF process makes it most natural to participate if you're a representative of a company, because it is very long, requires many meetings (some of them in-person), and therefore is most feasible to participate in if someone is paying your salary and travel to spend 3 years standardizing a protocol. Sometimes academics participate as well, if it's a proposed standard that is very close to their interests, enough so that it makes sense to take time that could be spent doing new research, and spend it on the IETF process instead. If you aren't in either of those positions, participation in an IETF process is likely to be economically challenging.
As far as condensation, perhaps it depends on the climate? A freezer-temp piece of metal in Arizona doesn't pick up much condensation, but one in Georgia will sweat all over the place.
I do agree that stories of it actually fixing modern drives are probably either apocryphal or obsolete.
Hah, indeed. Microsoft has lots of problems now, but it had a lot of problems before too! It's kind of funny that in 2012 the "old Microsoft" has become some kind of utopia looked back on as if it were driven by technologists in pursuit of technical excellence. In the 1990s, Slashdotters would surely not have thought that. Microsoft in, say, 1997 was not working towards "a common goal of excellence", but some very corporate-strategy driven ideas about where the PC market should go. Arguably that's true of much of what they did in the 1980s, as well.
I find cmd+left/right really awkward for that, because it's so often used for other things. For example, if you have the URL bar focused in a browser, cmd+left/right work to go to the beginning or end of the text field. But if you accidentally didn't have the URL bar focused, cmd+left becomes the browser's "back" button! And, it doesn't work at all in Terminal, where cmd+left/right cycle through terminals.
Six is a bit long, but not really outside the norm compared to how a typical large company would do it. One place I've worked, it took three years to fully roll out our Microsoft Exchange transition. And that's just desktop-oriented software for just regular employee usage. IT projects relating to anything more complex or business-critical could take more years. There are still mainframes operating at some places, and decade-long projects to replace them that haven't finished.
Sadly, that's how bespoke enterprise development goes in the private sector, too. Fortune 500 companies routinely pay huge amounts for this kind of stuff.