Actually, I may have gotten that wrong. At any rate, if you want to follow the research on the biology side, I believe that this guy is the PI. Check out his publications.
Disclaimer: I work for one of the organisations in the Bionic Vision Australia consortium. I don't work on the project specifically. I do know several people who do.
BVA is quite a large group of researchers. Some of them are engineers, some are physicists, some are clinicians and some are biologists. I don't know for sure, but I would be willing to bet the group as a whole understands the biology.
I don't know you, so I don't know if you're an arsehole or not. Assuming you're not, I'd be happy for you to get any promotion, raise or bonus that I do.
I didn't drink until I was in my thirties, and I'm with you. It has several distinct advantages:
1. You are still invited along to events. (They do need a designated driver, after all.) 2. If you do come to drinking later in life, when you have some disposable income, you will probably never develop a taste for megaswill-in-a-can or blended whisky. Yes, this is an advantage. If it helps, recall that Starbucks is for people who like the effect that coffee has on them, but don't actually like coffee. 3. You can spend your time having actual fun. Drunkenness doesn't make for fun, it provides a mechanism for you to kid yourself that you're having fun when you actually are not. 4. I'm a nerd, and my brain is my best asset. Preserve at all costs.
That case happens rarely. The case you're actually looking for is values of a where the function has even period.
The reasoning behind it is this:
Suppose that N has at least two distinct prime factors. (If it isn't, then N is either prime or a perfect power of a prime. There are efficient algorithms for detecting the latter case.) Further suppose that the function f(x) = a^x mod N has minimum period 2r for some r. (That is, f(x+2r) = f(x), but f(x+q) f(x) for any q < 2r.)
In this case, a^(2r) is congruent to 1 modulo N, but a^r is NOT congruent to 1 modulo N. That is, a^r is a square root of unity modulo N, but it isn't congruent to 1. If it also isn't congruent to -1 (which is the case that you mentioned), then it's a nontrivial square root of unity.
Now consider the number d = gcd(a^r-1, N). If d=N, then N is a factor of a^r-1, that is, a^r is congruent to 1 modulo N. This is a contradiction (since we eliminated this case above), so it can't happen. Similarly, if d=1, then a^r is congruent to -1 modulo N, which is the other case that we eliminated above. (Exercise: prove this!)
So d is a divisor of N (because it's the gcd of N with some other number), but it isn't 1 or N. Therefore, it's a nontrivial factor of N.
Of course, it's not obvious that there should be an a for which f has even period, but that's where the hardcore analysis comes in.
'Vaccination' is a massive fraud, a huge money earner for the fraudsters who make the so-called 'vaccines'.
Leaving aside the rest of the post, this alone is ridiculous.
Vaccines are a loss leader. If you're big pharma, and you want to defraud the public, you don't sell quack preventions. Not only would that would be easily spotted by scientists wanting to make their careers, you only need to sell a prevention once.
No, there's basically no money to be made from vaccines. The money is made from ongoing cures, especially if the cure is for a "disease" which doesn't exist or is just a different kind of normal. That's why there are a dozen pills for erectile dysfunction for baby boomers, but no cures for malaria.
Please explain for all the stupid people in the room how, if student A is vaccinated but student B is not, that this will make student A sick.
I was vaccinated against pertussis, but when I was young, vaccination rates for pertussis were low.
The pertussis vaccine of the day (unsure if this is still the case) didn't absolutely prevent you from getting the disease, but it did reduce its severity and your risk of passing it on. I got the disease anyway. It was pretty severe, to the point that had I not been vaccinated, I'd probably not be here today. It did permanent damage to my throat.
So, stupid people of Slashdot, it's true and I'm proof.
Incidentally, there are also some kids who can't be immunised because of their own medical history. Not vaccinating your children puts them at risk by removing their herd immunity.
Congratulations! That most common glyph in Anglo-Saxon is truly difficult to avoid. It is a more practical activity if you mechanically consult a book of synonyms to find a proxy for individual words.
I believe the salient point is that civilian deaths pretty much always vastly outnumber those of combatants.
Interestingly, it wasn't true in the classical-era, where no self-respecting soldier would ever dream of killing a perfectly good potential slave or rape victim.
I haven't had it for long, but my Galaxy S III has only ever hung when the UI shell hung. Oddly enough, the cause of most crashes so far has been Mongloid.
I have read Dark Side of the Sun and Strata, and I don't think anyone is missing out on all that much. They're not bad as first-time author material goes, but hardly "read it or you'll regret it".
I think he should revisit the sci-fi genre now that he is a more practiced author.
This argument boils down to the idea that the government can ignore the constitution if it thinks it needs to.
This is just a suggestion, but maybe the right thing to do is provide a way to make that sort of behaviour legal.
Consider, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has the force of a constitutional Bill of Rights, but contains an "out" clause which says that any individual piece of legislation may override it, but must do so explicitly, and cannot last for more than five years. (Of course, the legislation could be renewed, allowing it to remain in effect in perpetuity, but each renewal requires explicit activity.)
At least in theory, this trades excessive legalism for honesty. The government may violate your rights if it thinks it needs to, but must admit that this is what it's doing, and must re-justify it every five years if it wants to keep doing it.
There are circumstances in which suspending the rules are appropriate, national emergencies being one of the more obvious examples. By giving legislators a way to do it legally, it discourages tortured interpretations of the law which pretend that it's not really being violated at all.
Of course, this will never happen in the US, because the US government would rather just pretend that what it's doing is legal or refuse to hold anyone to account. Politicians lie, film at 11.
I once worked on a system to try to improve the situation for boxing, which currently has one of the most non-objective systems in existence. (In case you're curious why they still use the old system, it turns out to be fiendishly difficult to build circuitry designed to be repeatedly hit.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I may have gotten that wrong. At any rate, if you want to follow the research on the biology side, I believe that this guy is the PI. Check out his publications.
No guarantees, but one thing I do know is that the implant is designed to bypass the retina completely and stimulate the optic nerve directly.
Disclaimer: I work for one of the organisations in the Bionic Vision Australia consortium. I don't work on the project specifically. I do know several people who do.
BVA is quite a large group of researchers. Some of them are engineers, some are physicists, some are clinicians and some are biologists. I don't know for sure, but I would be willing to bet the group as a whole understands the biology.
I don't know you, so I don't know if you're an arsehole or not. Assuming you're not, I'd be happy for you to get any promotion, raise or bonus that I do.
Why would I not want you to succeed? Sour grapes? The more the merrier, I say.
I didn't drink until I was in my thirties, and I'm with you. It has several distinct advantages:
1. You are still invited along to events. (They do need a designated driver, after all.)
2. If you do come to drinking later in life, when you have some disposable income, you will probably never develop a taste for megaswill-in-a-can or blended whisky. Yes, this is an advantage. If it helps, recall that Starbucks is for people who like the effect that coffee has on them, but don't actually like coffee.
3. You can spend your time having actual fun. Drunkenness doesn't make for fun, it provides a mechanism for you to kid yourself that you're having fun when you actually are not.
4. I'm a nerd, and my brain is my best asset. Preserve at all costs.
Yeah, just look at all the money Dajaz1 got for being screwed around.
The sadder part is that a nutritionist doesn't seem to know how much salt is in a McDonald's bun.
- Someone who knows the difference between "nutritionist" and "dietician".
That case happens rarely. The case you're actually looking for is values of a where the function has even period.
The reasoning behind it is this:
Suppose that N has at least two distinct prime factors. (If it isn't, then N is either prime or a perfect power of a prime. There are efficient algorithms for detecting the latter case.) Further suppose that the function f(x) = a^x mod N has minimum period 2r for some r. (That is, f(x+2r) = f(x), but f(x+q) f(x) for any q < 2r.)
In this case, a^(2r) is congruent to 1 modulo N, but a^r is NOT congruent to 1 modulo N. That is, a^r is a square root of unity modulo N, but it isn't congruent to 1. If it also isn't congruent to -1 (which is the case that you mentioned), then it's a nontrivial square root of unity.
Now consider the number d = gcd(a^r-1, N). If d=N, then N is a factor of a^r-1, that is, a^r is congruent to 1 modulo N. This is a contradiction (since we eliminated this case above), so it can't happen. Similarly, if d=1, then a^r is congruent to -1 modulo N, which is the other case that we eliminated above. (Exercise: prove this!)
So d is a divisor of N (because it's the gcd of N with some other number), but it isn't 1 or N. Therefore, it's a nontrivial factor of N.
Of course, it's not obvious that there should be an a for which f has even period, but that's where the hardcore analysis comes in.
Leaving aside the rest of the post, this alone is ridiculous.
Vaccines are a loss leader. If you're big pharma, and you want to defraud the public, you don't sell quack preventions. Not only would that would be easily spotted by scientists wanting to make their careers, you only need to sell a prevention once.
No, there's basically no money to be made from vaccines. The money is made from ongoing cures, especially if the cure is for a "disease" which doesn't exist or is just a different kind of normal. That's why there are a dozen pills for erectile dysfunction for baby boomers, but no cures for malaria.
I was vaccinated against pertussis, but when I was young, vaccination rates for pertussis were low.
The pertussis vaccine of the day (unsure if this is still the case) didn't absolutely prevent you from getting the disease, but it did reduce its severity and your risk of passing it on. I got the disease anyway. It was pretty severe, to the point that had I not been vaccinated, I'd probably not be here today. It did permanent damage to my throat.
So, stupid people of Slashdot, it's true and I'm proof.
Incidentally, there are also some kids who can't be immunised because of their own medical history. Not vaccinating your children puts them at risk by removing their herd immunity.
Congratulations! That most common glyph in Anglo-Saxon is truly difficult to avoid. It is a more practical activity if you mechanically consult a book of synonyms to find a proxy for individual words.
No, it's not "easy enough to do". Not to Julian Assange. He's obsessively paranoid about his machines, either current or old.
When he was a teenager, he used to store his floppies in a bee hive. True story.
Interestingly, it wasn't true in the classical-era, where no self-respecting soldier would ever dream of killing a perfectly good potential slave or rape victim.
Unless it was a war of payback, of course.
And Nixon will keep wiping the tapes.
I think you're thinking of Karen Armstrong, the famous Australian movie director.
What, the lead singer of Green Day?
I haven't had it for long, but my Galaxy S III has only ever hung when the UI shell hung. Oddly enough, the cause of most crashes so far has been Mongloid.
Oh, that's easy. He's visiting his invalid friend, Bunbury.
Example silly message or statement: "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Not if it was mined using in-situ leeching.
I have read Dark Side of the Sun and Strata, and I don't think anyone is missing out on all that much. They're not bad as first-time author material goes, but hardly "read it or you'll regret it".
I think he should revisit the sci-fi genre now that he is a more practiced author.
If youre not doing bad shit then you have nothing to worry about.
I dare you to say that directly to the face of a Japanese-American citizen who lived through the internment camps of WW2.
This argument boils down to the idea that the government can ignore the constitution if it thinks it needs to.
This is just a suggestion, but maybe the right thing to do is provide a way to make that sort of behaviour legal.
Consider, for example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has the force of a constitutional Bill of Rights, but contains an "out" clause which says that any individual piece of legislation may override it, but must do so explicitly, and cannot last for more than five years. (Of course, the legislation could be renewed, allowing it to remain in effect in perpetuity, but each renewal requires explicit activity.)
At least in theory, this trades excessive legalism for honesty. The government may violate your rights if it thinks it needs to, but must admit that this is what it's doing, and must re-justify it every five years if it wants to keep doing it.
There are circumstances in which suspending the rules are appropriate, national emergencies being one of the more obvious examples. By giving legislators a way to do it legally, it discourages tortured interpretations of the law which pretend that it's not really being violated at all.
Of course, this will never happen in the US, because the US government would rather just pretend that what it's doing is legal or refuse to hold anyone to account. Politicians lie, film at 11.
Wouldn't piss on an EggMcMuffin if it was on fire.
That's a shame. It would probably improve it.
That's true of many sports.
I once worked on a system to try to improve the situation for boxing, which currently has one of the most non-objective systems in existence. (In case you're curious why they still use the old system, it turns out to be fiendishly difficult to build circuitry designed to be repeatedly hit.)