Given that many (most?) murders go unsolved it isn't particularly meaningful that the evidence is lacking. Especially when talking about professional killers combined with extremely powerful political forces that can simply apply pressure to have any unruley police drop the "ridiculous" matter.
Not that police would. As a rule police assume the most obvious conclusion they can't rule out is the correct one. That's why DNA testing after the fact has exonerated so many people on death row.
You are right, you can't prove a negative but in the event this positive is true the lack of evidence we find is what we'd expect to see.
Lowest price per gigabyte? When you are talking about 60-100TB drives we are now looking at the cost per TB. And we know there are initial setup costs to manufacture but at the end of the day these are still devices made of the cheapest and most plentiful materials on earth and essentially photoreplicated. Sure start it at $10 grand for the suckers like the 2.5 for 6 months but then drop this sucker down to a sane price for the next year for enterprise sales at maybe $400 with a 5 year warranty and to early adopter masses at $200 with a 1 year warranty. By the time that warranty is up make $200 a 3 year warranty and put out a $150 1 year and $100 90 day units. Make 10's of TB the new benchmark fast.
I've already put a very serious dent in my 24TB home array. The problem with a giant array is that although it is very redundant and unlikely to fail your options are pretty limited on where to shift the data to if you want to change something about it.
Mayber higher and higher drive capacities with fast drives will finally start to put some pressure on the companies with 10gbe cores to stop milking ridiculous prices for tech that is ancient. We are very fast approaching the point (in some ways we are already there) where processing is the data bottleneck.
And the same applies to your trying to "yank out the leg" from diesalesmandie's argument.
"You fall into the category of people who think they are intelligent; some of the most intelligent may goof off on Slashdot whereas others don't. But I'll tell you one thing they don't do - make categorical statements about subjective concepts."
He asserts that ShanghaiBill only claims to be intelligent and then makes a declaration about what intelligent people do not do. His authority to do either requires an implication of his own superior intelligence allowing him to recognize ShanghaiBill's lack thereof and to relate to what an intelligent person would or would not say. I do not need to be more intelligent than either of you to point this out. I also don't need to neccessarily be more intelligent than anyone in this thread to know there is not enough data contained within it for anyone to be able to intelligently make such a sweeping qualitative judgement.
That I could be in the category of people who think they are intelligent? Of course it could. By all means yank out that leg since my own intelligence or perception of it isn't a premise required to support my argument.
Unless of course it is you who falls into the category of people who think they are intelligent. In which case you really have no clue what sort of statements intelligent people don't make and just think you do due to hubris. It's like one is two foot in height and trying to judge who is tall. One lacks the required perspective.
As I understand it diebold systems which are vulnerable to negative vote preloading are still used in the major population centers for voting. So 3 party registered independent verification of wiped and clean state prior to elections both in the general and primaries would be a start.
"The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role."
That isn't a joke, it's just reverse sexism. Reverse sexism isn't going to work. You can't cure sexism with more sexism any more than you can cure hate with more hate. The same as racism. Stop trying to teach the next generation that sexism is funny.
"Which is why he also takes on Dana's roll of "the possessed friend" later in the movie, because Dana does better fit the joke they're trying to make."
Other than being played by someone attractive, how does Dana fit that role any better than Janine? She was a strong and intelligent female character.
"too many people abuse the PG-13 rating for political agendas I don't share"
Agreed, censorship only serves to retard the mental development and coping skills of children. There is a reason that the children who were raised in a world where they actually enforced R ratings at the theater became teenagers who kill themselves left and right.
It was terrible and highly sexist. A sex object male secretary and "safety switches are for boys." This is a kids movie. The message for the next generation is do everything wrong to an innocent crop of males that old and dying men did to girls once upon a time?
If it had been a great movie maybe those things would be less glaring but it was a terrible movie, it wasn't funny, no suspense, no action, nothing redeeming at all.
They are both exploiting human flaws. In both cases a messager where the messages disappear after a few seconds fails because it only has one practical application. Good luck explaining to your significant other why you have that app.
"ANd again, just because Thiel is interested in it doesn't mean he's running the study or funding it, all that's happened is one of his medical advisers called the company up and asked them what they were doing and what the business model was. So this entire piece from Gawker is a hit piece, trying to take a phone call by an associate of Thiel to a company running a basic research clinical study and trying to turn it into some claim that Thiel wants to inject himself with the blood of the youth.
And as usual Slashdot is falling for the media hype without checking the actual story. Everything I just said came from the linked articles; it's an obvious attempt at yellow journalism by Gawker as revenge. Why are you guys falling for this garbage?"
Huh? I commented regarding the studies being performed and the ethics of jumping straight to a half baked human exploratory trial without doing more animal research first. I agree with regard to Gawker and their bias and frankly have no fucks to give for Thiel either way.
"Then you should read the study. It has shown improvement in mouse studies, and so they're trying it out to see if there's an improvement in humans as well as there are differences between humans and mice. If an improvement in general health appears to be there and that improvement can be quantified in some way, it gives researchers insight on where to look, narrowing down millions of markers to maybe thousands which accelerates the research to find something of benefit. How is that unethical, especially given that this study is done via all the standard disclaimers and disclosures of any human trial?"
Because they can look for the underlying cause within Mice first and/or study primates. Only when they've found the underlying cause and exhausted research on animals should they study on humans. Blood transfusions carry a high risk factor. It is dangerous to just throw blood into the veins of humans without understanding any underlying mechanism. Once they find that mechanism and produce a solution that targets it, and that solution has been successful in trials on multiple mammals, THEN they should move to human trials.
" Blood contains millions upon millions of biomarkers in it, and so instead of grabbing every single one and identifying it's properties (which can be years of research for just one), they're throwing in the whole bag to see what happens to those older folks."
Right, which falls under correlation doesn't equal causation. Since at most this tells us there MIGHT be something in the blood to start looking for it seems highly unethical to jump straight to human studies.
If talking about a single puff, for the person directly using the device it is dispersed into the volume of their lungs. For a third party it is, all else being equal, the volume of the space which encompasses both parties spreading equally in all directions. This of course is only the maximum concentration, in normal travel, for a brief window before the vapor further disperses. Air currents do of course change things.
Obviously the concentration will be higher if the vapor is blown in your face but given the amounts of any substance we are talking about here even the dispersion in that case combined with the amount you actually inhale mixed with atmosphere and volume of your own lungs has a huge diminishing impact on the concentration. There is nothing here to compare with the combustion output the restaurant kitchen adds to atmosphere in a restaurant for example.
That's...not how anything works. We have this thing called the law of conservation of energy and mass.
Take a puff on an e-cig, release, watch it rapidly expand into the air as it disperses. As it expands the concentration diminishes and the ppm in a cubic centimeter of air diminishes, since this is expanding in three dimensions it does so at an exponential rate. Even the inhaled puff is mostly atmosphere drawn in through the air intake vents on a vaporizer.
The ambient air concentration could increase in a tiny unventilated space but in order to achieve a concentration higher than at the source it would need to be restricted to the point where oxygen would be depleted and CO2 would be increasing more rapidly.
Trend languages tend to be more popular on trend public hosting platforms like github and more mature languages already have answers on stackoverflow and the like and therefore would have fewer questions asked. C would likely rank even lower without so many people asking questions and getting pointed at existing solutions.
The flaw in this methodology is that it assumes the fly-by-night trend languages of today will survive the test of time simply because their adoption rate is high today. The reality is most of them will vanish into obscurity with time as they always have.
Absolutely, I can't argue with that. But the concentration is important information in it's own right a small overall amount of many substances in high concentration can be dangerous while a large amount of dillute substance is sometimes not. I'd absolutely agree that the total in the puff combined with the total in the exhale would provide a complete picture of absorption and be critical information, without the measurement of the exhale it is useless information.
Hopefully the paper has more details but their methodlogy involved constructing their own machine and voltage adjustment is discussed at length. There is a lot of information missing there, these kind of low voltages aren't likely very meaningful or relevant information without the resistance. Also what was the flow rate through the device, did it actually replicate a human breath and airflow in e-cigs.
The suggestion that SOME e-cigs allow for voltage regulation is somewhat disturbing. Only the absolute lowest grade devices lack voltage control, certainly nothing you'd find in a vape shop, and quality devices regulate wattage (important because the device adjusts voltage automatically with varied resistance in the coil) as well as coil temperature regulation. The last especially seems important given their hypothesis that toxins levels correlate with higher coil surface temp.
The fact these gases are lung and eye irritants may well have driven the industry to have already produced devices that solve/minimize this problem simply seeking a more pleasant vaping experience. Hopefully they conduct a useful study actually looking to minimize health risks. I very much doubt these levels amount to anything significant when exhaled and dilluted into the gas volume of an indoor space. Calling nicotine vapor devices "e-cigs" and likening them to cigerettes remains unjustified at this point. There are many things without "cig" in their names that emit far higher levels of known carcinogens into common indoor spaces every day including the kitchen at the restaurant you are eating in.
"After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic" "Anthropomorphizing tap water isn't working for me. "
Huh? I said isn't intended, not doesn't intend. Your ecig was produced by a company, it also is what is is.
"Vaping cannot be anything but toxic"
Sure it can, just as your arsenic containing tap water can. Look at Nicotine itself, it is a "toxin" but at the concentrations contained in e-cigs is completely harmless. Everything is a toxin at a high enough concentration and that is the critical piece of information missing here, they give the total amount contained in a puff (which they've maxed to 5 full seconds and from their device instead of a real one) and failed to disclose the concentration.
"Bullshit. The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices."
And they regulate everything, their regulation is what made makign health claims about e-cigs illegal.
As for the power and duty, I missed where we gave them that in the constitution. Unless you mean in the "can get away with it" sense. Studying for safety and spreading information is quite different than regulating.
"At the same time I shouldn't have to pay for injuries or damages caused by people using these things by raising my insurance rates."
And I shouldn't have to pay for baby boomers and their physical fitness obsession wearing out their joints, other couples choosing to have a baby, the heart health effects of that terrible food they eat, the mental and physical health problems caused by choosing to go war, and the damage caused to officers and dea agents in their fight in a pointless war on drugs. Oh wait, yes, we both SHOULD pay for those things because that is what insurance is for. I get absolutely no say or judgement in the health and safety practices of others, I have to pay toward their well being no matter the source and they have to pay for mine when I do something stupid and end up with a medical bill.
Stop judging your fellow citizens and fighting against their health care and start fighting to reduce the cost of the best care imaginable. Attack what matters, the pharmaceuticals industry, surgical health providers, and medical equiptment these are the places where a $20 procedure gets ballooned into a $20,000 procedure.
"Nicotine may be a toxin, but in the amounts in which it's consumed, that's the least concern about the effects upon the body. However, these devices weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors."
True, they weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors. However the concentration of those vapors is an important consideration as well. Most importantly, the concentration when dilluted into the air volume of a room.
After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic but it most assuredly does and likely contains some concentration of more harmful chemicals than even actual cigerettes.
Luckily only the tobacco companies will be able to produce these devices soon which will solve the problem of intent. The tobacco companies add harmful chemicals to cigerettes intentionally I see no reason they won't do the same here.
Batteries failing at a random moment in the middle of a random task and with unknown consequences is an issue. The last time I tried a wireless keyboard it was more like every 3-6 months but it's likely improved.
This the battery issue a show stopper. Then there is the lag which would be a show stopper for a gamer.
Wireless network links suck as well. I use them for mobile devices because you don't transit much data there but having wifi definitely has not eliminated the need for faster and lower latency wired links around the house.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that many (most?) murders go unsolved it isn't particularly meaningful that the evidence is lacking. Especially when talking about professional killers combined with extremely powerful political forces that can simply apply pressure to have any unruley police drop the "ridiculous" matter.
Not that police would. As a rule police assume the most obvious conclusion they can't rule out is the correct one. That's why DNA testing after the fact has exonerated so many people on death row.
You are right, you can't prove a negative but in the event this positive is true the lack of evidence we find is what we'd expect to see.
Lowest price per gigabyte? When you are talking about 60-100TB drives we are now looking at the cost per TB. And we know there are initial setup costs to manufacture but at the end of the day these are still devices made of the cheapest and most plentiful materials on earth and essentially photoreplicated. Sure start it at $10 grand for the suckers like the 2.5 for 6 months but then drop this sucker down to a sane price for the next year for enterprise sales at maybe $400 with a 5 year warranty and to early adopter masses at $200 with a 1 year warranty. By the time that warranty is up make $200 a 3 year warranty and put out a $150 1 year and $100 90 day units. Make 10's of TB the new benchmark fast.
I've already put a very serious dent in my 24TB home array. The problem with a giant array is that although it is very redundant and unlikely to fail your options are pretty limited on where to shift the data to if you want to change something about it.
Mayber higher and higher drive capacities with fast drives will finally start to put some pressure on the companies with 10gbe cores to stop milking ridiculous prices for tech that is ancient. We are very fast approaching the point (in some ways we are already there) where processing is the data bottleneck.
And the same applies to your trying to "yank out the leg" from diesalesmandie's argument.
"You fall into the category of people who think they are intelligent; some of the most intelligent may goof off on Slashdot whereas others don't. But I'll tell you one thing they don't do - make categorical statements about subjective concepts."
He asserts that ShanghaiBill only claims to be intelligent and then makes a declaration about what intelligent people do not do. His authority to do either requires an implication of his own superior intelligence allowing him to recognize ShanghaiBill's lack thereof and to relate to what an intelligent person would or would not say. I do not need to be more intelligent than either of you to point this out. I also don't need to neccessarily be more intelligent than anyone in this thread to know there is not enough data contained within it for anyone to be able to intelligently make such a sweeping qualitative judgement.
That I could be in the category of people who think they are intelligent? Of course it could. By all means yank out that leg since my own intelligence or perception of it isn't a premise required to support my argument.
Unless of course it is you who falls into the category of people who think they are intelligent. In which case you really have no clue what sort of statements intelligent people don't make and just think you do due to hubris. It's like one is two foot in height and trying to judge who is tall. One lacks the required perspective.
But hey, at least owners of these devices have a super easy path to root without need to flash any special image.
As I understand it diebold systems which are vulnerable to negative vote preloading are still used in the major population centers for voting. So 3 party registered independent verification of wiped and clean state prior to elections both in the general and primaries would be a start.
"The joke is that he's supposed to be a gender-swapped version of the traditional movie female role."
That isn't a joke, it's just reverse sexism. Reverse sexism isn't going to work. You can't cure sexism with more sexism any more than you can cure hate with more hate. The same as racism. Stop trying to teach the next generation that sexism is funny.
"Which is why he also takes on Dana's roll of "the possessed friend" later in the movie, because Dana does better fit the joke they're trying to make."
Other than being played by someone attractive, how does Dana fit that role any better than Janine? She was a strong and intelligent female character.
"too many people abuse the PG-13 rating for political agendas I don't share"
Agreed, censorship only serves to retard the mental development and coping skills of children. There is a reason that the children who were raised in a world where they actually enforced R ratings at the theater became teenagers who kill themselves left and right.
It was terrible and highly sexist. A sex object male secretary and "safety switches are for boys." This is a kids movie. The message for the next generation is do everything wrong to an innocent crop of males that old and dying men did to girls once upon a time?
If it had been a great movie maybe those things would be less glaring but it was a terrible movie, it wasn't funny, no suspense, no action, nothing redeeming at all.
But they generally don't.
As soon as password changes aren't part of PCI the world will be a better place.
They are both exploiting human flaws. In both cases a messager where the messages disappear after a few seconds fails because it only has one practical application. Good luck explaining to your significant other why you have that app.
"ANd again, just because Thiel is interested in it doesn't mean he's running the study or funding it, all that's happened is one of his medical advisers called the company up and asked them what they were doing and what the business model was. So this entire piece from Gawker is a hit piece, trying to take a phone call by an associate of Thiel to a company running a basic research clinical study and trying to turn it into some claim that Thiel wants to inject himself with the blood of the youth.
And as usual Slashdot is falling for the media hype without checking the actual story. Everything I just said came from the linked articles; it's an obvious attempt at yellow journalism by Gawker as revenge. Why are you guys falling for this garbage?"
Huh? I commented regarding the studies being performed and the ethics of jumping straight to a half baked human exploratory trial without doing more animal research first. I agree with regard to Gawker and their bias and frankly have no fucks to give for Thiel either way.
"Then you should read the study. It has shown improvement in mouse studies, and so they're trying it out to see if there's an improvement in humans as well as there are differences between humans and mice. If an improvement in general health appears to be there and that improvement can be quantified in some way, it gives researchers insight on where to look, narrowing down millions of markers to maybe thousands which accelerates the research to find something of benefit. How is that unethical, especially given that this study is done via all the standard disclaimers and disclosures of any human trial?"
Because they can look for the underlying cause within Mice first and/or study primates. Only when they've found the underlying cause and exhausted research on animals should they study on humans. Blood transfusions carry a high risk factor. It is dangerous to just throw blood into the veins of humans without understanding any underlying mechanism. Once they find that mechanism and produce a solution that targets it, and that solution has been successful in trials on multiple mammals, THEN they should move to human trials.
" Blood contains millions upon millions of biomarkers in it, and so instead of grabbing every single one and identifying it's properties (which can be years of research for just one), they're throwing in the whole bag to see what happens to those older folks."
Right, which falls under correlation doesn't equal causation. Since at most this tells us there MIGHT be something in the blood to start looking for it seems highly unethical to jump straight to human studies.
If talking about a single puff, for the person directly using the device it is dispersed into the volume of their lungs. For a third party it is, all else being equal, the volume of the space which encompasses both parties spreading equally in all directions. This of course is only the maximum concentration, in normal travel, for a brief window before the vapor further disperses. Air currents do of course change things.
Obviously the concentration will be higher if the vapor is blown in your face but given the amounts of any substance we are talking about here even the dispersion in that case combined with the amount you actually inhale mixed with atmosphere and volume of your own lungs has a huge diminishing impact on the concentration. There is nothing here to compare with the combustion output the restaurant kitchen adds to atmosphere in a restaurant for example.
That's...not how anything works. We have this thing called the law of conservation of energy and mass.
Take a puff on an e-cig, release, watch it rapidly expand into the air as it disperses. As it expands the concentration diminishes and the ppm in a cubic centimeter of air diminishes, since this is expanding in three dimensions it does so at an exponential rate. Even the inhaled puff is mostly atmosphere drawn in through the air intake vents on a vaporizer.
The ambient air concentration could increase in a tiny unventilated space but in order to achieve a concentration higher than at the source it would need to be restricted to the point where oxygen would be depleted and CO2 would be increasing more rapidly.
Trend languages tend to be more popular on trend public hosting platforms like github and more mature languages already have answers on stackoverflow and the like and therefore would have fewer questions asked. C would likely rank even lower without so many people asking questions and getting pointed at existing solutions.
The flaw in this methodology is that it assumes the fly-by-night trend languages of today will survive the test of time simply because their adoption rate is high today. The reality is most of them will vanish into obscurity with time as they always have.
Absolutely, I can't argue with that. But the concentration is important information in it's own right a small overall amount of many substances in high concentration can be dangerous while a large amount of dillute substance is sometimes not. I'd absolutely agree that the total in the puff combined with the total in the exhale would provide a complete picture of absorption and be critical information, without the measurement of the exhale it is useless information.
Hopefully the paper has more details but their methodlogy involved constructing their own machine and voltage adjustment is discussed at length. There is a lot of information missing there, these kind of low voltages aren't likely very meaningful or relevant information without the resistance. Also what was the flow rate through the device, did it actually replicate a human breath and airflow in e-cigs.
The suggestion that SOME e-cigs allow for voltage regulation is somewhat disturbing. Only the absolute lowest grade devices lack voltage control, certainly nothing you'd find in a vape shop, and quality devices regulate wattage (important because the device adjusts voltage automatically with varied resistance in the coil) as well as coil temperature regulation. The last especially seems important given their hypothesis that toxins levels correlate with higher coil surface temp.
The fact these gases are lung and eye irritants may well have driven the industry to have already produced devices that solve/minimize this problem simply seeking a more pleasant vaping experience. Hopefully they conduct a useful study actually looking to minimize health risks. I very much doubt these levels amount to anything significant when exhaled and dilluted into the gas volume of an indoor space. Calling nicotine vapor devices "e-cigs" and likening them to cigerettes remains unjustified at this point. There are many things without "cig" in their names that emit far higher levels of known carcinogens into common indoor spaces every day including the kitchen at the restaurant you are eating in.
"After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic"
"Anthropomorphizing tap water isn't working for me. "
Huh? I said isn't intended, not doesn't intend. Your ecig was produced by a company, it also is what is is.
"Vaping cannot be anything but toxic"
Sure it can, just as your arsenic containing tap water can. Look at Nicotine itself, it is a "toxin" but at the concentrations contained in e-cigs is completely harmless. Everything is a toxin at a high enough concentration and that is the critical piece of information missing here, they give the total amount contained in a puff (which they've maxed to 5 full seconds and from their device instead of a real one) and failed to disclose the concentration.
"Bullshit. The federal government has both the power and duty regulate such devices."
And they regulate everything, their regulation is what made makign health claims about e-cigs illegal.
As for the power and duty, I missed where we gave them that in the constitution. Unless you mean in the "can get away with it" sense. Studying for safety and spreading information is quite different than regulating.
"At the same time I shouldn't have to pay for injuries or damages caused by people using these things by raising my insurance rates."
And I shouldn't have to pay for baby boomers and their physical fitness obsession wearing out their joints, other couples choosing to have a baby, the heart health effects of that terrible food they eat, the mental and physical health problems caused by choosing to go war, and the damage caused to officers and dea agents in their fight in a pointless war on drugs. Oh wait, yes, we both SHOULD pay for those things because that is what insurance is for. I get absolutely no say or judgement in the health and safety practices of others, I have to pay toward their well being no matter the source and they have to pay for mine when I do something stupid and end up with a medical bill.
Stop judging your fellow citizens and fighting against their health care and start fighting to reduce the cost of the best care imaginable. Attack what matters, the pharmaceuticals industry, surgical health providers, and medical equiptment these are the places where a $20 procedure gets ballooned into a $20,000 procedure.
"Nicotine may be a toxin, but in the amounts in which it's consumed, that's the least concern about the effects upon the body. However, these devices weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors."
True, they weren't intended to emit other toxic vapors. However the concentration of those vapors is an important consideration as well. Most importantly, the concentration when dilluted into the air volume of a room.
After all, your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic but it most assuredly does and likely contains some concentration of more harmful chemicals than even actual cigerettes.
Luckily only the tobacco companies will be able to produce these devices soon which will solve the problem of intent. The tobacco companies add harmful chemicals to cigerettes intentionally I see no reason they won't do the same here.
Batteries failing at a random moment in the middle of a random task and with unknown consequences is an issue. The last time I tried a wireless keyboard it was more like every 3-6 months but it's likely improved.
This the battery issue a show stopper. Then there is the lag which would be a show stopper for a gamer.
Wireless network links suck as well. I use them for mobile devices because you don't transit much data there but having wifi definitely has not eliminated the need for faster and lower latency wired links around the house.