You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.
Triclosan is the substance that most "antibacterial" soaps contain. It has very little to do with the development of antibiotic resistance. However, several studies have shown that soap and water are about as effective with it, as without it, in terms of preventing infections.
Development of antibiotic resistance has to do with 3 factors:
1. Overprescription of antibiotics - i.e. giving Abx to someone who has a cold. Whether it's self-medication, or done by an MD is irrelevant in this case. 2. Improper prescription of antibiotics - i.e. not everything in the world can be cured with a 5-day course of Azithromycin (Zithromax). Too many doctors just hand it out like candy. We should really rely on testing for bug susceptibility in many more cases than we do now. 3. Improper use of antibiotics - i.e. not finishing the course. This is an old problem, that seems to have no solution, especially when it comes to the "internet-know-it-all" patients... who think that 5 minutes of googling qualifies them to self-medicate at will.
While it's unclear what it is that Google would like to do with the spectrum, what IS clear, is that it's likely to be advantageous to the consumer. Why, you ask? Because under the current system, a state-sanctioned oligopoly of companies have instituted a system of high prices and low quality of service, that is probably unsurpassed in any other industrialized nation. They have built their closed networks taxpayer subsidies, and are now in a position where they have repeatedly refused to upgrade their infrastructure or invest in any real upgrades, and would rather sit on their pile of gold and slowly reduce the quality of service as their customer base and demands expand. It's short-sighted, and harmful to virtually everyone. Entry of a new player will give the market a long-needed shakeup.
That's true, although it'll be hard to get incadescents to meet those energy standards.
However, I am again disturbed by the ability of our politicians to play the "ban it" game in order to appear capable of taking action. They are getting exquisitely efficient at banning various things we use in everyday life. Really, if politicians ban something every time they need to raise $100'000, in a couple of decades they probably will have banned procreation.
Seriously though, if they really cared about the efficiency of the bulbs, and wanted to spend more than a passing gaze at dealing with the problem, I think they would've refrained from such massive ridiculousness. Granted, incadescents are not efficient, but CFLs don't yet have as complete and warm a spectrum (I use them everywhere though), and many decorative light fixtures simply require incadescents.
Wouldn't it have made more sense, to pressure the market economically, rather than legally, and simply levy enough of a tax on the incadescent bulbs, to make them more expensive than the fluorescents, while at the same time using the money to subsidize the LED and CFL technologies?
The difference is the overall level of asshole-ness of the drivers. Much of the braking in dense traffic is caused by desperate maneuvers. In New York, the maneuvers are caused by the fact that I'd say less than 10% of the drivers will allow anyone to merge ahead of them for ANY reason. In dense traffic moving at 50mph, it's not uncommon to be within 3-4 meters of the car in front of you, or even less. And since nobody will allow you to merge, you're forced to perform pretty daring high-acceleration maneuvers to force yourself into the target lane... which will cause that lane to rapidly decelerate, clearly creating the traffic wave.
All it would take to stop this from happening, is for people to stop being assholes, and to let you through, when you're trying to get into an exit, 1/4 mile away.
Nobody wants to inject embryonic stem cells into people directly. The whole point of ESCs is that they're pluripotent - can be coerced to differentiate into virtually any cell. The idea is to differentiate the ESCs into whatever is necessary to repair the damage... nerve cells, muscle cells, etc... and likely do it in-vitro even BEFORE the transplant. Or possibly in-situ, immediately afterwards. Nobody wants undifferentiated ESCs in patients.
So would you please stop with the FUD. It's annoying.
Perhaps this is one of those cases where the concerns are moot, given the opportunity for privacy abuse already present. The acquisition of DoubleClick will probably not serve to dramatically increase the potential and scope of privacy violations that are already possible for Google.
So, even if we discount FTCs decision on the grounds they presented, there may be little reason to worry over the final outcome.
obviously, you're unaware of the natural leakage of rechargeable batteries. even in the "off" position, most rechargeable batteries will discharge in a matter of weeks on the upper end.
That's highly incorrect. Lithium ion batteries have a self-discharge rate of about 5% per month. However, while the battery is connected to a power supply, some energy is always consumed, just like the way desktop PSUs consume power when the computer is off, but when the PSU cutoff switch is not switched off. That's why laptops will not stay charged for months when unused. Take the battery OUT of the laptop, and you will be able to power it on a year after you turn it off.
Low-self-discharge (LSD) NiMH cells (such as Sanyo Eneloop) have discharge rates that are even lower... up to as little as 20% per year.
Someone should set up a fund for her to go after RIAA and MediaSentry over this.
Heck, I'd Paypal a few bucks over to see how this turns out. I figure another ten thousand people are with me. If we all chip in $20, that'd be enough to get this ball rolling.
Well, why don't you tell me what is the benefit (to the public) of having a PUBLIC registry of convicted sex offenders (statutory rape anyone)?
The only reason for such registries, is to enact continuing lifelong punishment on the convicted criminal, even after the release, by virtue of harrassment by the members of the public who somehow have the free time to go browsing these databases (instead of taking care of their children).
What are you going to do if a sex offender moves next door to you? Have him evicted on a technicality? Torch his house? Stab him? Don't you think that whatever little chance there is of having this man re-integrate into society, will likely be ruined by this behavior? If you don't want to re-integrate this man into the society, then go ahead and lobby for life-sentences for any sex offense (18 sleeping with 17?)... or better yet - the death penalty. But if you take up the view that people can change, and can pay their debt to society, you have to accept your own conclusions.
But back to the main question - how is publicly-viewable registration going to increase public safety? Is it going to prevent a habitual rapist from raping? If not registering is a little crime, do you think that matters to someone who is pathologically going to commit far more severe offenses?
Even better, any animal that can't distinguish between members of its own species and rocks, would probably have a hard time passing such stupidity on to the next generation, no?
Given the number of these news lately, let us just assume that EVERYONE'S personal information has been compromised. The problem is that the only way to combat identity theft, is to have a way of positively identifying any person. The trouble with that, is that it would require a single entity (presumably government) to store (and thus have access to) this information. So the question is this - what's worth more to us - financial safety, or privacy and anonymity.
Of course, this all assumes that the current financial system stays as is... when it is as much to blame for the rash of identity theft, as the thieves themselves... because it both makes it easy to establish credit, and difficult to recover one's credit and finances, once they've been compromised.
In essence, the system is structured to benefit the lenders with little regard for the clients. (yeah, i know - big surprise).
How about teaching your students the principles of what they are going to do, so that (with some acclimatization) they can adapt to any software within the category you've taught.
For instance, as far as image editing is concerned, it would be nice to talk about brushes and layers, and filters, all the while showing that while different software can have various options, located in various menus, the work can be accomplished on either, as long as the person knows exactly what they are trying to do.
That way, your students would be more than just click-monkeys, who know little more than what sequence of buttons to push according to a flowchart.
Because otherwise they will wind up like our Pathology department administrator who, when I suggested that to save the school tens of thousands of dollars a year they should use OpenOffice and discontinue the MSOffice site license, turned to me and asked: "But without MSOffice, how will our people do any work?"
Readers should fairly expect there to be an inviolable firewall between advertising and editorial in journalism, and game journalism
You'd have to be seriously naive to think that such a thing would be true. Maybe I am cynical, but I think that realistically one can expect no wall at all. Any separation between money and journalism is out of the norm, and should be a pleasant surprised.
Youtube's terms of service prohibit graphic violence. The terms of service were violated, and the violator was punished. If this was any other person, posting random violence, there'd be no scandal over his removal.
So why, may I ask, is the Slashdot community so biased over youtube... when clearly the blogger chose to post content he knew to be unacceptable according to the terms of this FREE service.
If this content was removed from his blog... or if his blog was removed... that might be sensorship. But in this case, all Youtube did, was enforce its terms of service.
Good for them. Now can they all please stop screaming into their phones as soon as my train comes up to the surface. Because if I have to endure one more time of "you won't believe what that bitch said to me" at 100dB and 6 inches away from my ear, I might snap.
The amount paid to these researchers is more about market economics than anything else. There are a lot of talented researchers (more supply) driving their salaries down. The same is not true for Accountants, as very few of them go on to get doctoral degrees (and fewer still choose to stay in academia). Their salaries are not AT ALL a reflection of how much people care about what they do.
I live in New York City. We here have a state-sponsored monopoly known as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which manages the subway. A booth clerk who sells metro-cards, and directs customers (rudely) will make $54'000/year after 5 years... not including a hefty retirement package, and a medical benefits package for the entire family. <br><br> If salaries are only about market economics, then may I ask you a question: <br><br> - Is there a shortage of talented and qualified booth clerks in New York City? <br><br> Because I don't think there is. I think that the MTA union has power because they control the city's transportation, and when they strike, even a threat is enough to get the city to back down and give them more money. They have, in essence, been committing legalized extortion, for a while now.
Easy fix indeed. Given the approach this country has taken to its scientists, I wouldn't be surprised if what you suggest will be exactly what happens - the scientists rebel, and promptly get fired en masse. Why? Because nobody cares.
Railroad workers, airline workers, even taxicab drivers - when any of these professions strike, it is felt immediately by the general population, so there is a push to resolve the issues amicably, so that they could return to work.
If all scientists in the US... not just the NASA rocket scientists... stop working RIGHT NOW... the vast majority of the population won't know, and the majority of those who know, won't care.
Why? Because nothing that these people do affects us EVERY DAY. Thus, they're not important. Which is why a post-doc at a top-tier academic institution, will be making <$32'000/year.
These are the kinds of initiatives that one can applaud when they're coming from a public company. Interestingly, this isn't just an idle PR stunt, or vain charity. While Google expects to invest "tens of millions" into pilot projects, they also are committing themselves to investing "hundreds of millions" into those projects that are likely to yield positive returns.
I have spent so long lamenting the short-sightedness of American business, that it's easy to overlook the fact that at least some companies are willing to stake their immediate earnings on potentially much greater gains in the future. It's therefore very nice to see Google at the forefront of energy innovation because, let's face it, as a geek, that's exactly where I'd be pouring a fair portion of my post-billionaire funds. That and space... but alas Brin hasn't decided to finance his own airospace company YET...
1. DoD contractor produces a prototype, then obtains a $100M grant from the DoD to pursue it further. 2. DoD contractor requests $50M for additional research and receives it 3. DoD contractor delivers the detector as a proprietary black box, running Windows, at a price of $10M each. 50 units are ordered by the government. 4. 5 CalTech students make a working detector for $20'000 out of an old scintillation counter, plumbing pipe, and a PentiumIII machine running BSD. 5. Nobody cares.
n the novel a physical process in the human brain is responsible for all causality, by collapsing wavefunctions representing systems into particular eigenstates. Human observations of the universe were reducing its diversity and potentiality (for instance, by rendering it uninhabitable to beings that relied on stars being something other than the enormous nuclear fusion-powered furnaces human astronomers have observed them to be). Hence it is suggested that the Bubble was constructed to prevent humanity from wreaking massive destruction on the rest of the universe through the process of mere observation.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess.
You're part of the "9-11 Truth" committee... you think HIV doesn't cause AIDS... you think MMR vaccine causes autism... and your presidential candidate of choice is Ron Paul.
Triclosan is the substance that most "antibacterial" soaps contain. It has very little to do with the development of antibiotic resistance. However, several studies have shown that soap and water are about as effective with it, as without it, in terms of preventing infections.
Development of antibiotic resistance has to do with 3 factors:
1. Overprescription of antibiotics - i.e. giving Abx to someone who has a cold. Whether it's self-medication, or done by an MD is irrelevant in this case.
2. Improper prescription of antibiotics - i.e. not everything in the world can be cured with a 5-day course of Azithromycin (Zithromax). Too many doctors just hand it out like candy. We should really rely on testing for bug susceptibility in many more cases than we do now.
3. Improper use of antibiotics - i.e. not finishing the course. This is an old problem, that seems to have no solution, especially when it comes to the "internet-know-it-all" patients... who think that 5 minutes of googling qualifies them to self-medicate at will.
While it's unclear what it is that Google would like to do with the spectrum, what IS clear, is that it's likely to be advantageous to the consumer. Why, you ask? Because under the current system, a state-sanctioned oligopoly of companies have instituted a system of high prices and low quality of service, that is probably unsurpassed in any other industrialized nation. They have built their closed networks taxpayer subsidies, and are now in a position where they have repeatedly refused to upgrade their infrastructure or invest in any real upgrades, and would rather sit on their pile of gold and slowly reduce the quality of service as their customer base and demands expand. It's short-sighted, and harmful to virtually everyone. Entry of a new player will give the market a long-needed shakeup.
That's true, although it'll be hard to get incadescents to meet those energy standards.
However, I am again disturbed by the ability of our politicians to play the "ban it" game in order to appear capable of taking action. They are getting exquisitely efficient at banning various things we use in everyday life. Really, if politicians ban something every time they need to raise $100'000, in a couple of decades they probably will have banned procreation.
Seriously though, if they really cared about the efficiency of the bulbs, and wanted to spend more than a passing gaze at dealing with the problem, I think they would've refrained from such massive ridiculousness. Granted, incadescents are not efficient, but CFLs don't yet have as complete and warm a spectrum (I use them everywhere though), and many decorative light fixtures simply require incadescents.
Wouldn't it have made more sense, to pressure the market economically, rather than legally, and simply levy enough of a tax on the incadescent bulbs, to make them more expensive than the fluorescents, while at the same time using the money to subsidize the LED and CFL technologies?
The difference is the overall level of asshole-ness of the drivers. Much of the braking in dense traffic is caused by desperate maneuvers. In New York, the maneuvers are caused by the fact that I'd say less than 10% of the drivers will allow anyone to merge ahead of them for ANY reason. In dense traffic moving at 50mph, it's not uncommon to be within 3-4 meters of the car in front of you, or even less. And since nobody will allow you to merge, you're forced to perform pretty daring high-acceleration maneuvers to force yourself into the target lane... which will cause that lane to rapidly decelerate, clearly creating the traffic wave.
All it would take to stop this from happening, is for people to stop being assholes, and to let you through, when you're trying to get into an exit, 1/4 mile away.
Stop with the FUD.
Nobody wants to inject embryonic stem cells into people directly. The whole point of ESCs is that they're pluripotent - can be coerced to differentiate into virtually any cell. The idea is to differentiate the ESCs into whatever is necessary to repair the damage... nerve cells, muscle cells, etc... and likely do it in-vitro even BEFORE the transplant. Or possibly in-situ, immediately afterwards. Nobody wants undifferentiated ESCs in patients.
So would you please stop with the FUD. It's annoying.
Perhaps this is one of those cases where the concerns are moot, given the opportunity for privacy abuse already present. The acquisition of DoubleClick will probably not serve to dramatically increase the potential and scope of privacy violations that are already possible for Google.
So, even if we discount FTCs decision on the grounds they presented, there may be little reason to worry over the final outcome.
That's highly incorrect. Lithium ion batteries have a self-discharge rate of about 5% per month. However, while the battery is connected to a power supply, some energy is always consumed, just like the way desktop PSUs consume power when the computer is off, but when the PSU cutoff switch is not switched off. That's why laptops will not stay charged for months when unused. Take the battery OUT of the laptop, and you will be able to power it on a year after you turn it off.
Low-self-discharge (LSD) NiMH cells (such as Sanyo Eneloop) have discharge rates that are even lower... up to as little as 20% per year.
Someone should set up a fund for her to go after RIAA and MediaSentry over this.
Heck, I'd Paypal a few bucks over to see how this turns out. I figure another ten thousand people are with me. If we all chip in $20, that'd be enough to get this ball rolling.
Well, why don't you tell me what is the benefit (to the public) of having a PUBLIC registry of convicted sex offenders (statutory rape anyone)?
The only reason for such registries, is to enact continuing lifelong punishment on the convicted criminal, even after the release, by virtue of harrassment by the members of the public who somehow have the free time to go browsing these databases (instead of taking care of their children).
What are you going to do if a sex offender moves next door to you? Have him evicted on a technicality? Torch his house? Stab him? Don't you think that whatever little chance there is of having this man re-integrate into society, will likely be ruined by this behavior? If you don't want to re-integrate this man into the society, then go ahead and lobby for life-sentences for any sex offense (18 sleeping with 17?)... or better yet - the death penalty. But if you take up the view that people can change, and can pay their debt to society, you have to accept your own conclusions.
But back to the main question - how is publicly-viewable registration going to increase public safety? Is it going to prevent a habitual rapist from raping? If not registering is a little crime, do you think that matters to someone who is pathologically going to commit far more severe offenses?
Even better, any animal that can't distinguish between members of its own species and rocks, would probably have a hard time passing such stupidity on to the next generation, no?
Given the number of these news lately, let us just assume that EVERYONE'S personal information has been compromised. The problem is that the only way to combat identity theft, is to have a way of positively identifying any person. The trouble with that, is that it would require a single entity (presumably government) to store (and thus have access to) this information. So the question is this - what's worth more to us - financial safety, or privacy and anonymity.
Of course, this all assumes that the current financial system stays as is... when it is as much to blame for the rash of identity theft, as the thieves themselves... because it both makes it easy to establish credit, and difficult to recover one's credit and finances, once they've been compromised.
In essence, the system is structured to benefit the lenders with little regard for the clients. (yeah, i know - big surprise).
How about teaching your students the principles of what they are going to do, so that (with some acclimatization) they can adapt to any software within the category you've taught.
For instance, as far as image editing is concerned, it would be nice to talk about brushes and layers, and filters, all the while showing that while different software can have various options, located in various menus, the work can be accomplished on either, as long as the person knows exactly what they are trying to do.
That way, your students would be more than just click-monkeys, who know little more than what sequence of buttons to push according to a flowchart.
Because otherwise they will wind up like our Pathology department administrator who, when I suggested that to save the school tens of thousands of dollars a year they should use OpenOffice and discontinue the MSOffice site license, turned to me and asked: "But without MSOffice, how will our people do any work?"
Then again, lots of things can be fixed with a black marker - military intelligence, prisoner records, global warming reports...
You'd have to be seriously naive to think that such a thing would be true. Maybe I am cynical, but I think that realistically one can expect no wall at all. Any separation between money and journalism is out of the norm, and should be a pleasant surprised.
That's not "Insightful" in any way.
Youtube's terms of service prohibit graphic violence. The terms of service were violated, and the violator was punished. If this was any other person, posting random violence, there'd be no scandal over his removal.
So why, may I ask, is the Slashdot community so biased over youtube... when clearly the blogger chose to post content he knew to be unacceptable according to the terms of this FREE service.
If this content was removed from his blog... or if his blog was removed... that might be sensorship. But in this case, all Youtube did, was enforce its terms of service.
/whoosh
I was being sarcastic.
I said "academic" which is where the VAST MAJORITY of researchers work.
In academic institutions, a technician with a BS will usually make as much or more than a post-doc with a PhD.
And to clarify, I am talking biomedical research here.
Good for them. Now can they all please stop screaming into their phones as soon as my train comes up to the surface. Because if I have to endure one more time of "you won't believe what that bitch said to me" at 100dB and 6 inches away from my ear, I might snap.
I live in New York City. We here have a state-sponsored monopoly known as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which manages the subway. A booth clerk who sells metro-cards, and directs customers (rudely) will make $54'000/year after 5 years... not including a hefty retirement package, and a medical benefits package for the entire family.
<br><br>
If salaries are only about market economics, then may I ask you a question:
<br><br>
- Is there a shortage of talented and qualified booth clerks in New York City?
<br><br>
Because I don't think there is. I think that the MTA union has power because they control the city's transportation, and when they strike, even a threat is enough to get the city to back down and give them more money. They have, in essence, been committing legalized extortion, for a while now.
Who the hell marked parent as "troll"? He may have been a little crass, but it was certainly not a trolling post...
Easy fix indeed. Given the approach this country has taken to its scientists, I wouldn't be surprised if what you suggest will be exactly what happens - the scientists rebel, and promptly get fired en masse. Why? Because nobody cares.
Railroad workers, airline workers, even taxicab drivers - when any of these professions strike, it is felt immediately by the general population, so there is a push to resolve the issues amicably, so that they could return to work.
If all scientists in the US... not just the NASA rocket scientists... stop working RIGHT NOW... the vast majority of the population won't know, and the majority of those who know, won't care.
Why? Because nothing that these people do affects us EVERY DAY. Thus, they're not important. Which is why a post-doc at a top-tier academic institution, will be making <$32'000/year.
These are the kinds of initiatives that one can applaud when they're coming from a public company. Interestingly, this isn't just an idle PR stunt, or vain charity. While Google expects to invest "tens of millions" into pilot projects, they also are committing themselves to investing "hundreds of millions" into those projects that are likely to yield positive returns.
I have spent so long lamenting the short-sightedness of American business, that it's easy to overlook the fact that at least some companies are willing to stake their immediate earnings on potentially much greater gains in the future. It's therefore very nice to see Google at the forefront of energy innovation because, let's face it, as a geek, that's exactly where I'd be pouring a fair portion of my post-billionaire funds. That and space... but alas Brin hasn't decided to finance his own airospace company YET...
1. DoD contractor produces a prototype, then obtains a $100M grant from the DoD to pursue it further.
2. DoD contractor requests $50M for additional research and receives it
3. DoD contractor delivers the detector as a proprietary black box, running Windows, at a price of $10M each. 50 units are ordered by the government.
4. 5 CalTech students make a working detector for $20'000 out of an old scintillation counter, plumbing pipe, and a PentiumIII machine running BSD.
5. Nobody cares.