Well, you've succeeding in taking a (mostly) accurate statement used to make a general point, and drug it through several layers of unnecessary quibbling.
There was nothing accurate about the statement. Saying pros don't have the equipment or expertise to sequence is simply wrong.
Now, without admitting you were wrong, you are attempting to shift the argument to 'it's cheaper and more efficient for many folks to outsource it', which I already agreed about the statements of other people about in the post you are replying to. Plus you pull some stats you made up out of your ass. Kudos. You are well on your well for publishing in non-peer-reviewed journals.
Oh, I didn't say it wasn't more time-efficient/cost-effective to ship it out if your lab doesn't routinely do a lot of it. I said saying that pro's don't have the equipment or know-how to do it was BS. Which it is.
Example: I'm single. I have a salad maybe once a week. I could go buy a nice fresh head of lettuce, and carrots, and olives and tomato's, and an assortment of deli meat to add to it, etc, etc. But much of that stuff will probably spoil before I use it again. And chopping up a lot of different ingredients will take me some time. It's much much faster and more efficient for me to make a salad at a salad bar, or get a salad at McDonlds, etc, so that's what I almost always do. Saying I don't have the equipment and expertise to make a salad is quite stupid and wrong however. That was my point about the original posters statements.
I am a professional research scientist, one of the younger ones.
I can tell you are one of the younger ones.
For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee. That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.
This is complete BS. You simply were never taught the protocols to do it the old fashioned way. I was sequencing my own amplified genes a couple decades ago with pretty standard lab equipment.
Disclosure: I am a professional research scientist. Not one of the younger ones.
I'll bet good money that it wasn't one company they hired(created) to make the calls. It was one company, then a couple months later a new one, then a couple months later a new one. That way the FCC would always be investigating a closed/bankrupt/nonexistent company, while a brand new one was starting up doing the same thing, with the same people, in a boiler room a few blocks away from the previous one.
They didn't know a thing about your warranty. Or your car. The call folks all the time who either have no cars, or ancient cars that haven't had warranties of any kind for years and years and tell them 'your warranty is about to expire'.
They are cold calls. They haven't done any research. Some of the better ones use the same cold reading techniques that psychics do to trick you into thinking they know what they are talking about. They are hoping you are dumb enough to provide the information to them when the call.
As another poster said, on gravel roads, you are as likely to take a hit from a car coming the other way as you are to take one from the car you are following.
This is one reason I'm glad the road I grew up on had a cinder road. The cinders were light enough that they wouldn't crack a window when the same size chunk of gravel almost certainly would have.
Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically.NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.
They installed it without permission. Extensions change how firefox works. That's kind of the point of them. They add/alter functionality. In this case potentially opening a huge security hole, without permission.
From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.
Providing it on Firefox is well and good. Forcing it on Firefox is definitely not.
From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of.NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)
Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective. Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically. We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript, thanks.
The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed.NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.
It is a security issue. And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll. I won't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling. (Please mod the troll to oblivion).
Al Capone went to the pen for tax evasion. It didn't make what he was doing legal. It just gave them a way to toss him in jail for the illegal stuff he was doing when they had a hard time proving that he was doing it.
So instead you get to spend a bunch of time uninstalling all the extra CRUD that OEM's install by default on their windows installs. Franky I'd rather spend the time doing the install and knowing it was a clean install rather than wondering what crap was still lurking somewhere.
And how much did he get paid for 5 seconds of work?
I never claimed all the stuff was Oscar material, just that none of them are starving for work.
I think they are doing this project, sure for some cash (more is always good), but also because it probably sounds like fun getting together with a bunch of old friends for a few months on a fun project.
Not that that will make it a great movie, but that they've got motivation that's definitely not 'we aren't getting any gigs'.
Sigourney Weaver? Bah, she only has 18 film projects listed since 2004. And lots of TV gigs. LOTS. That's hardly working in the world of LA actors though, right? Oh.
Harold Ramis? Well, he's sure slowed down in his writing, but he's been acting a little (Knocked Up,Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, etc), a little producing, a little directing (a few episodes of The Office, etc). It looks like he's picking and choosing and having fun, not really struggling for projects.
Here's the thing, I don't WANT an Xbox 360. I loathe console gaming. The dumbed down games for the dumbed down interface suck, and I like the tons and tons of user-created downloadable content and mods for PC games. So what you might spend extra for a console, I can spend just for a video card because I already have a decent computer to stick it on.
People selling goods or services are free to require payment in a set method or increment (cash only, bills only, etc) of their choosing. They don't have to accept that barrel of pennies.
IANAL, but I'd bet it's the same for settlement money in court cases.
Let me help you out a little. You seem to be somewhat lacking in the understanding of the English language.
From Websters...
Critic:
1. a person who judges, evaluates, *or* criticizes: a poor critic of men.
2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.
Emphasis mine.
A movie critic doesn't necessarily dislike a movie... They judge or comment on them. There are tons of critics of the new Star Trek film. Read any review in any newspaper/blog, and you are reading a movie critic's remarks.
But the researchers concluded that "the sample (N > 200) was too small to generate any meaningful conclusions." I wonder if they would have included the same caveat had they discovered a significant difference.
You might be a teacher educator, but you appear to be bashing folks for some bias you are projecting on them for their analysis without any understanding of the statistics involved.
A 15 point average difference doesn't mean much (read ANYTHING) if the p-value isn't significant. The N > 200 probably didn't hit the target of the Power Analysis for the study for the difference they were looking at.
This is all basic statistics. If they discovered a significant difference, that would mean they had a a large enough N to generate a meaningful conclusion, so of course they would not have included that caveat.
We see you and the other NoScript folks defending Giorgio like crazy, when we instead you should be asking him WTF he was thinking.
NoScript users (I was one, until this), install NoScript for one reason only. We care about the security of our machines. The only reason I ever installed NoScript, was to prevent someone from running code on my machine that would modify other software on my machine without my consent.
What does Giorgio do? Write code into Noscript that modifies other code running on my machine without my consent.
This was not a mistake in coding, as you have alluded to in other posts other place (asking why folks aren't mad when MS has a bug in their software) this was deliberate.
Not only does he do this, he obfuscates it so folks won't find it.
When caught, instead of apologizing profusely, at first he denies, then tries to explain it away. When pushed by outraged users he makes a confusing patch that most folks would just hit 'ok' on, leaving the unwanted code on their machines.
His credibility as someone who can be trusted is GONE. Completely.
The one single reason to use his software is security, and your project now does the very thing all it's users want to prevent.
Instead of being outraged by the betrayal of the project you have been working on, and at the user base, you defend him vigorously for having run unauthorized code on our machines.
Your credibility as well is going down the tubes fast.
If I were you I'd take a time out, go off, try to get some perspective, and see if this is really something you want to be seen as defending, and how this colors you in the eyes of software users as well.
Dude, stuff DOES get lost in the mail. Perhaps you have always had good mail carriers, but I've lived in a lot of different places, and in some of them sometimes mail that was sent to me (I know it was) just didn't get there.
At most places it's been good, but there were certain places or with certain carriers, where things just wasn't that horribly reliable.
Overall it's a good system, but don't claim things never get lost. That' BS.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you've succeeding in taking a (mostly) accurate statement used to make a general point, and drug it through several layers of unnecessary quibbling.
There was nothing accurate about the statement. Saying pros don't have the equipment or expertise to sequence is simply wrong.
Now, without admitting you were wrong, you are attempting to shift the argument to 'it's cheaper and more efficient for many folks to outsource it', which I already agreed about the statements of other people about in the post you are replying to. Plus you pull some stats you made up out of your ass. Kudos. You are well on your well for publishing in non-peer-reviewed journals.
Example: I'm single. I have a salad maybe once a week. I could go buy a nice fresh head of lettuce, and carrots, and olives and tomato's, and an assortment of deli meat to add to it, etc, etc. But much of that stuff will probably spoil before I use it again. And chopping up a lot of different ingredients will take me some time. It's much much faster and more efficient for me to make a salad at a salad bar, or get a salad at McDonlds, etc, so that's what I almost always do. Saying I don't have the equipment and expertise to make a salad is quite stupid and wrong however. That was my point about the original posters statements.
I am a professional research scientist, one of the younger ones.
I can tell you are one of the younger ones.
For example, after amplifying a gene, no researcher will sequence it themselves: it's shipped of to a specialized lab that will do it, for a fee. That sequencing step requires equipment and expertise that's at a higher level than even the pros don't have.
This is complete BS. You simply were never taught the protocols to do it the old fashioned way. I was sequencing my own amplified genes a couple decades ago with pretty standard lab equipment.
Disclosure: I am a professional research scientist. Not one of the younger ones.
I'll bet good money that it wasn't one company they hired(created) to make the calls. It was one company, then a couple months later a new one, then a couple months later a new one. That way the FCC would always be investigating a closed/bankrupt/nonexistent company, while a brand new one was starting up doing the same thing, with the same people, in a boiler room a few blocks away from the previous one.
They didn't know a thing about your warranty. Or your car. The call folks all the time who either have no cars, or ancient cars that haven't had warranties of any kind for years and years and tell them 'your warranty is about to expire'.
They are cold calls. They haven't done any research. Some of the better ones use the same cold reading techniques that psychics do to trick you into thinking they know what they are talking about. They are hoping you are dumb enough to provide the information to them when the call.
As another poster said, on gravel roads, you are as likely to take a hit from a car coming the other way as you are to take one from the car you are following.
This is one reason I'm glad the road I grew up on had a cinder road. The cinders were light enough that they wouldn't crack a window when the same size chunk of gravel almost certainly would have.
Have you used it in years? I run across those DAILY on google.
You can open a command prompt and ftp it from: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org
That's how we used to get most things in the old days...
Psst,
Single users can just use Microsoft Update rather than Windows Update.
*You* were the one who brought WSUS into the conversation in your post before his. Moron.
For anyone interested in details of the crashes:
Nagoya, Japan
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19940426-0
Mulhouse-Habsheim, France
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19880626-0
You haven't the foggiest troll.
The thing had less than 2K RAM. 640K would have been a dream. I had a system and loved it.
You can have a look at some of the ROMs for it here:http://www.rom-world.com/dl.php?name=Intellivision&letter=G
15K is a 'big' one.
Wait, what's the big problem? It sounds to me like they decided to give Firefox support for what is basically .NET's equivalent of Java WebStart. It means you're using a Windows platform... which you are if you're bitching about this. They didn't alter the code for firefox, or anything-- they installed an extension.
They installed it without permission. Extensions change how firefox works. That's kind of the point of them. They add/alter functionality. In this case potentially opening a huge security hole, without permission.
From the team perspective, they probably viewed it as a positive gesture--while they were updating the clickonce support on IE, they figured they would provide it on Firefox as well to give users a wider range of choice as to what their browser is.
Providing it on Firefox is well and good. Forcing it on Firefox is definitely not.
From an enterprise perspective, you probably want to use things like ClickOnce on your company Intranet; that way web applications don't have to be cludged together in either archaic standard javascript or wacky inconsistent non-standard "modern" javascript... you can make consistent interfaces for things like electronic timesheets and such. Chances are, they don't want you removing it unless you know what you're doing. Of course, there's also some tin-foil hat linux moron who is going to remove the extension with their user-level permissions because it says "Microsoft" on it, then complain about the lack of .NET web application to support. Or worse... "WHY ISN'T THIS WRITTEN IN HTML 5? IT'S A WORKING DRAFT SORT OF. HOW ABOUT WxPython?!" One might even surmise that it being user-level monkey-able might make it more open to exploitation than it would be in IE.. (GreaseMonkey, anyone?)
Then you know nothing of enterprise perspective. Enterprises can already roll out all the software they want to automatically. We roll out tons of applications all the time with no javascript, thanks.
The fact of the matter is, it's platform integration. Nothing more. For most users, ClickOnce is simply convenient. It just bridges them to support for secure sandboxed .NET applications that might be convenient if provided. For wingbats on slashdot, it's A GROSS INVASION OF THEIR OMG PRIVACY THAT THEY DEMAND FOR THEIR PIRATED COPY OF WINDOWS XP.
It is a security issue. And my copy of XP is very much paid for Mr. Troll. I won't respond further because the rest of your post is just more inane trolling. (Please mod the troll to oblivion).
Bzzzt.
Al Capone went to the pen for tax evasion. It didn't make what he was doing legal. It just gave them a way to toss him in jail for the illegal stuff he was doing when they had a hard time proving that he was doing it.
So instead you get to spend a bunch of time uninstalling all the extra CRUD that OEM's install by default on their windows installs. Franky I'd rather spend the time doing the install and knowing it was a clean install rather than wondering what crap was still lurking somewhere.
And how much did he get paid for 5 seconds of work?
I never claimed all the stuff was Oscar material, just that none of them are starving for work.
I think they are doing this project, sure for some cash (more is always good), but also because it probably sounds like fun getting together with a bunch of old friends for a few months on a fun project.
Not that that will make it a great movie, but that they've got motivation that's definitely not 'we aren't getting any gigs'.
"Hey none of us are getting gigs, let's do a remake!"
Yeah, they are all just desperate for work...
Just take Bill Murray for example. In the past 5 years he's only got 12 projects listed on the Internet Movie Database
Including :
The Darjeeling Limited 67% fresh on Rotton Tomatoes
The City of Ember
Get Smart
Broken Flowers 87% fresh
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
That's a struggling actor not getting gigs?
Sigourney Weaver? Bah, she only has 18 film projects listed since 2004. And lots of TV gigs. LOTS. That's hardly working in the world of LA actors though, right? Oh.
Harold Ramis? Well, he's sure slowed down in his writing, but he's been acting a little (Knocked Up,Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, etc), a little producing, a little directing (a few episodes of The Office, etc). It looks like he's picking and choosing and having fun, not really struggling for projects.
Here's the thing, I don't WANT an Xbox 360. I loathe console gaming. The dumbed down games for the dumbed down interface suck, and I like the tons and tons of user-created downloadable content and mods for PC games. So what you might spend extra for a console, I can spend just for a video card because I already have a decent computer to stick it on.
Probably because the U.S. Supreme Court overrides state courts in the matter of constitutional law.
It is (prohibited), at least in the U.S.
People selling goods or services are free to require payment in a set method or increment (cash only, bills only, etc) of their choosing. They don't have to accept that barrel of pennies.
IANAL, but I'd bet it's the same for settlement money in court cases.
Yes, by far that's the standard definition used when talking about MOVIE CRITICS. (That's sarcasm in case you didn't catch it)
From Websters...
Critic:
1. a person who judges, evaluates, *or* criticizes: a poor critic of men.
2. a person who judges, evaluates, or analyzes literary or artistic works, dramatic or musical performances, or the like, esp. for a newspaper or magazine.
Emphasis mine.
A movie critic doesn't necessarily dislike a movie... They judge or comment on them. There are tons of critics of the new Star Trek film. Read any review in any newspaper/blog, and you are reading a movie critic's remarks.
Sorry, I sent it in today, but I got impatient and decided to warp back to earlier in the week to post it.
My Bad.
But the researchers concluded that "the sample (N > 200) was too small to generate any meaningful conclusions." I wonder if they would have included the same caveat had they discovered a significant difference.
You might be a teacher educator, but you appear to be bashing folks for some bias you are projecting on them for their analysis without any understanding of the statistics involved.
A 15 point average difference doesn't mean much (read ANYTHING) if the p-value isn't significant.
The N > 200 probably didn't hit the target of the Power Analysis for the study for the difference they were looking at.
This is all basic statistics. If they discovered a significant difference, that would mean they had a a large enough N to generate a meaningful conclusion, so of course they would not have included that caveat.
Here is the problem Tom,
We see you and the other NoScript folks defending Giorgio like crazy, when we instead you should be asking him WTF he was thinking.
NoScript users (I was one, until this), install NoScript for one reason only. We care about the security of our machines. The only reason I ever installed NoScript, was to prevent someone from running code on my machine that would modify other software on my machine without my consent.
What does Giorgio do? Write code into Noscript that modifies other code running on my machine without my consent.
This was not a mistake in coding, as you have alluded to in other posts other place (asking why folks aren't mad when MS has a bug in their software) this was deliberate.
Not only does he do this, he obfuscates it so folks won't find it.
When caught, instead of apologizing profusely, at first he denies, then tries to explain it away. When pushed by outraged users he makes a confusing patch that most folks would just hit 'ok' on, leaving the unwanted code on their machines.
His credibility as someone who can be trusted is GONE. Completely.
The one single reason to use his software is security, and your project now does the very thing all it's users want to prevent.
Instead of being outraged by the betrayal of the project you have been working on, and at the user base, you defend him vigorously for having run unauthorized code on our machines.
Your credibility as well is going down the tubes fast.
If I were you I'd take a time out, go off, try to get some perspective, and see if this is really something you want to be seen as defending, and how this colors you in the eyes of software users as well.
Dude, stuff DOES get lost in the mail. Perhaps you have always had good mail carriers, but I've lived in a lot of different places, and in some of them sometimes mail that was sent to me (I know it was) just didn't get there.
At most places it's been good, but there were certain places or with certain carriers, where things just wasn't that horribly reliable.
Overall it's a good system, but don't claim things never get lost. That' BS.