Absolutely. However, the consequences of those very predictable edits is not well understood.
That's saying that the consequences of editing a text file with emacs are not well understood; it's a meaningless statement, since the consequences depend on the edit.
There are many edits with predictable consequences. There are many edits with unpredictable consequences. But the range of consequences is pretty straightforward: most of the time, nothing happens, and rarely the person either gets sick or gets better.
I think the better analogy is it is like using emacs to edit a large binary executable (something I've actually done before in trying to crack licensed programs). One would hope that, through a debugger, one has a good idea of what the edit is supposed to do in order to exact the changes expected. Even when I was pretty sure I understood what changes I needed to make, I was still not eliminating the license checks, and causing random crashes. I don't claim to be an expert at doing this. However, our biological understanding (the debugger) is currently similarly lacking, if not more so. We know that editing DNA sequences modifies the transcribed proteins, and that there are also epigenetic factors that are affected (which was only established relatively recently), among other things (possibly yet to be discovered). I personally believe it is presumptuous and premature to declare that consequences of edits are predictable, since there could be subtle long-term decades-later effects of edits, or perhaps consequences for progeny of those subject to gene editing.
There are some implausible scenarios under which gene editing might pose a risk to other humans, but regulations are not going to stop those anyway, so you might as well not bother making those illegal.
What should be, and what is, as you point out, are two different things. I would rather be overly cautious in the case.
Because it's not always clear they actually enjoy those houses. A lot of the motivation for buildding mcmansions is one-upsmanship. I've lived in the bay area more than 30 years now and I see fellow Chinese build these monstrosities to show the world their wealth. If you ask them about houses they decry the lack of privacy and lack of yard. It's infuriating to bystanders because they are garrish. It's like if your neighbor painted their house bright green. They build this castle that overlooks your house and your windows and absolutely does not fit in with the original look and feel of the neighborhood.
I couldn't agree more, especially for a language that deals with math and linear algebra. When accessing submatrices of matrices and doing advanced linear algebra manipulations, using 0 based offsets leads to far more natural indexing, reduces the need to constantly subtract and re-add 1, and leads to fewer chances to make silly errors.
There's suggestion that this is not the case: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI...
Please do not continue to spread this rumor as it is just causing more harm.
And what if those aggressions and hatreds were directed at you or people you cared about? What if those anonymous comments threatened harm? How lightly then are you willing to take it?
There's definitely a balance that needs to be struck between free speech and its control, and it seems to me Yik Yak does more harm than good.
On the point or portability, there's then a distinction of your focus. If you do research on numerical methods, then yes, you would write highly optimized code for a particular machine, as an end in and of itself. I myself am merely a user, and our research group does not have the expertise to write such optimized code. We pay for time on supercomputing clusters, which constantly bring online new machines and retire old ones. Every year our subscription can change, and we are allowed to use resources on different computers. Therefore, from my standpoint, portability is very important. Otherwise, if we were to write our own code in-house, we basically have a 1 year (ok, fine, maybe 2 or 3 year) window in which to develop, test, and run it. It just doesn't seem worthwhile to spend so much effort developing a one-time use piece of code. I'd rather write something which will outlive my stay in the research program.
As someone who does heavy duty scientific computing, I wouldn't say that "most" of the actual process power is in GPUs. They are certainly more powerful at certain tasks, but most applications run are legacy code, and most algorithms require substantial reworking to get them to run with reasonable performance on a GPU. Simply put, GPU for supercomputing is not quite a mature technology yet. I am personally not too interested in coding for GPUs simply because the code is not portable enough yet, and by the time the technology might be mature, there might be a new wave of technology (like ARM) that could be easier to work with.
Why is there so much hate for netbooks? I've got a 10 inch eeePC from 3 years ago and I absolutely love it. I use it almost everyday and it still has great battery life of 3-4 hours down from 7-8 originally. Plus having a nearly full size keyboard makes doing actual work possible.
Yes, none is better. I'd rather not be given an option if I don't really like either. Furthermore, if you accidentally click on a link with Flash content, your browser may slow to a crawl.
You purchased some random kitchen tool (1) without knowing what it does and (2) without any idea what you were going to do with it? Man have I got some fine products to show you...
From what I can tell, VS2010 is going back to the old model of just including all the DLLs in the app directory. VS2008 was a huge pain with its manifests and SxS assemblies and crap.
This is not entirely true for a framework like OpenGL. You surely can add your own features or improve performance on your end, but these changes must be incorporated into graphics card drivers by vendors in order to have a wide audience. This is where it helps to have the industry clout that Microsoft does (not that this is necessarily a good thing, but they have the power to push through changes into hardware using their DirectX specs).
Note that MathType is only really for adding equations into Word documents; it supplants the MS Equation editor, and probably isn't meant for a whole lot more.
My adviser (in EE) also uses MathType for formulas and class notes. However, these tend to be short documents that are less than 10 pages long typically, with no need for serious cross referencing. Once you start trying to write serious documents on the order of a hundred pages, with cross references all over the place to equations, tables, and figures, MathType and Word's capabilities begin to pale compared to LaTeX.
Slashdot Mirror
That's saying that the consequences of editing a text file with emacs are not well understood; it's a meaningless statement, since the consequences depend on the edit.
There are many edits with predictable consequences. There are many edits with unpredictable consequences. But the range of consequences is pretty straightforward: most of the time, nothing happens, and rarely the person either gets sick or gets better.
I think the better analogy is it is like using emacs to edit a large binary executable (something I've actually done before in trying to crack licensed programs). One would hope that, through a debugger, one has a good idea of what the edit is supposed to do in order to exact the changes expected. Even when I was pretty sure I understood what changes I needed to make, I was still not eliminating the license checks, and causing random crashes. I don't claim to be an expert at doing this. However, our biological understanding (the debugger) is currently similarly lacking, if not more so. We know that editing DNA sequences modifies the transcribed proteins, and that there are also epigenetic factors that are affected (which was only established relatively recently), among other things (possibly yet to be discovered). I personally believe it is presumptuous and premature to declare that consequences of edits are predictable, since there could be subtle long-term decades-later effects of edits, or perhaps consequences for progeny of those subject to gene editing.
There are some implausible scenarios under which gene editing might pose a risk to other humans, but regulations are not going to stop those anyway, so you might as well not bother making those illegal.
What should be, and what is, as you point out, are two different things. I would rather be overly cautious in the case.
Gene editing is extremely well understood: it makes predictable changes to human DNA. That's its attraction.
Absolutely. However, the consequences of those very predictable edits is not well understood.
Because it's not always clear they actually enjoy those houses. A lot of the motivation for buildding mcmansions is one-upsmanship. I've lived in the bay area more than 30 years now and I see fellow Chinese build these monstrosities to show the world their wealth. If you ask them about houses they decry the lack of privacy and lack of yard. It's infuriating to bystanders because they are garrish. It's like if your neighbor painted their house bright green. They build this castle that overlooks your house and your windows and absolutely does not fit in with the original look and feel of the neighborhood.
I couldn't agree more, especially for a language that deals with math and linear algebra. When accessing submatrices of matrices and doing advanced linear algebra manipulations, using 0 based offsets leads to far more natural indexing, reduces the need to constantly subtract and re-add 1, and leads to fewer chances to make silly errors.
There's suggestion that this is not the case: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CI... Please do not continue to spread this rumor as it is just causing more harm.
And what if those aggressions and hatreds were directed at you or people you cared about? What if those anonymous comments threatened harm? How lightly then are you willing to take it? There's definitely a balance that needs to be struck between free speech and its control, and it seems to me Yik Yak does more harm than good.
On the point or portability, there's then a distinction of your focus. If you do research on numerical methods, then yes, you would write highly optimized code for a particular machine, as an end in and of itself. I myself am merely a user, and our research group does not have the expertise to write such optimized code. We pay for time on supercomputing clusters, which constantly bring online new machines and retire old ones. Every year our subscription can change, and we are allowed to use resources on different computers. Therefore, from my standpoint, portability is very important. Otherwise, if we were to write our own code in-house, we basically have a 1 year (ok, fine, maybe 2 or 3 year) window in which to develop, test, and run it. It just doesn't seem worthwhile to spend so much effort developing a one-time use piece of code. I'd rather write something which will outlive my stay in the research program.
As someone who does heavy duty scientific computing, I wouldn't say that "most" of the actual process power is in GPUs. They are certainly more powerful at certain tasks, but most applications run are legacy code, and most algorithms require substantial reworking to get them to run with reasonable performance on a GPU. Simply put, GPU for supercomputing is not quite a mature technology yet. I am personally not too interested in coding for GPUs simply because the code is not portable enough yet, and by the time the technology might be mature, there might be a new wave of technology (like ARM) that could be easier to work with.
Why is there so much hate for netbooks? I've got a 10 inch eeePC from 3 years ago and I absolutely love it. I use it almost everyday and it still has great battery life of 3-4 hours down from 7-8 originally. Plus having a nearly full size keyboard makes doing actual work possible.
Here is the link to the actual article in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/12/21/science.1214383
No. The fin is at one of the bottom-most layers of the chip. All the metalization layers for wires sit on top of the transistors.
Yes, none is better. I'd rather not be given an option if I don't really like either. Furthermore, if you accidentally click on a link with Flash content, your browser may slow to a crawl.
You purchased some random kitchen tool (1) without knowing what it does and (2) without any idea what you were going to do with it? Man have I got some fine products to show you...
You mean to say they plan to also build a weather machine to replicate the ever sunny skies here?
From what I can tell, VS2010 is going back to the old model of just including all the DLLs in the app directory. VS2008 was a huge pain with its manifests and SxS assemblies and crap.
A mod of Funny doesn't give the submitter any karma. For generosity, some people mod funny posts as Informative or Insightful.
... and that killer app would probably be easier to write in DirectX.
This is not entirely true for a framework like OpenGL. You surely can add your own features or improve performance on your end, but these changes must be incorporated into graphics card drivers by vendors in order to have a wide audience. This is where it helps to have the industry clout that Microsoft does (not that this is necessarily a good thing, but they have the power to push through changes into hardware using their DirectX specs).
That most certainly does not result in a monopole. You'd get a quadrupole I think.
Note that MathType is only really for adding equations into Word documents; it supplants the MS Equation editor, and probably isn't meant for a whole lot more. My adviser (in EE) also uses MathType for formulas and class notes. However, these tend to be short documents that are less than 10 pages long typically, with no need for serious cross referencing. Once you start trying to write serious documents on the order of a hundred pages, with cross references all over the place to equations, tables, and figures, MathType and Word's capabilities begin to pale compared to LaTeX.
Religion is not about belief, or at least not always. It's about compassion. Belief is what got us into this mess.
the Electronic Frontier Foundation?
"...it prints at the lightning-fast speed of 60,000 cm^3/s!"
Wow, that's a lot of ink...
Looks more like a lemon to me.
I'd hate to say this, but serves them right.