FTFA: "They showed a section of DNA responsible for sensitivity to the cherry blossom scent was made more active in the mice's sperm."
Oh. Gotcha. THAT section of DNA. Amazing that there are sections of DNA presumably responsible for 'sensitivity' to every possible scent, sound, and visual pattern.
Either this is the worst bit of scientific journalism or the worst bit of science I've read in years.
Does anyone here regularly deal with actually retrieving data stored long term on tape? In theory, it seems sound. I don't do it regularly, but the few times I have had to request a retrieval of old data from tape it's been a complete waste of time. Lots of excuses. No data.
I wish I had some points to mod you up. You are correct.
They could be using steel shot in shotguns for waterfowl hunting, but most likely the spark would be from secondary contact between a steel target (or can) and a rock or second piece of steel, I reckon.
Cry me a river. Can any of us really imagine the wasted effort over the years of supporting the diminishing few still using IE6? To be kind, it adds 10% to the cost of developing a standards compliant website. Multiplied by the millions of websites... it boggles what's left of my mind to think of what good could have been accomplished with those man hours.
So fuck you and your legacy intranet shit that controls the pressure valves in "The Plant". Fuck all of your kind, and, please, die in a pressure-related explosion and watch me as I weep... but not for you. I weep for those of us who've slaved away our youth to fix the bug that is IE6!
I have a cute narrative for DARPA. It's called Fuck You, Thought Police.
Bob was reading a book one day called, Fuck You, Thought Police.
Government thugs broke into his home, beat him, and took him to prison. They said he was a subversive. They said that although he hadn't committed any violent crime in the past, that he almost certainly would based on research conducted by well-meaning geeks who studied the effect of stories on people's thoughts and actions.
We hear copy editors, but more often typesetters whining about the two spaces contributing to the vertical river thing. Look. If you want the reader to logically follow your argument on the page and you respect your own thought process enough to trust the reader to come back and reread your sentences, then use the the two spaces. Individual sentences are easier to find that way. If all you care about is achieving a uniformly gray page, then try the single space.
I can still picture the side of the page (left or right) and approximate position on the page of passages of text I read as an undergraduate in certain books. I looked up just now two such passages I could think of and still have the books and both were from books with extra space between sentences. The pages of such books have distinct features. If all pages just look evenly gray memory is destroyed or not created to begin with in the reader. Either way two spaces is better.
The issue at hand has been with us for a very long time, but at the core it has nothing to do with keyboards or quantities of "spaces." It has to do with the display of symbols on printed pages. And in particular the failure to adequately include display information into the logical encoding of the symbols as distinct from their appearance on a page.
If we are just looking at words on a page, the question might be simply, should the white space between words be equal to the white space between sentences? If both sentences and words are demarcated only by space, then the answer must be no, for some method is needed to distinguish the logical structure of a sentence from a mere grouping of words. Given that we have additional sentence ending symbols, the answer should be effortless, but the symbols are vague. Ages ago, someone fucked up and used a period to indicate an abbreviated series of characters. Because of this, the character series period-space cannot sufficiently mark the logical ending of a sentence.
To restate the original question: "What character (or series of characters) is correctly used to indicate the end of a sentence structure within a series of symbols?" The correct answer is, and must by necessity always be, "The end-of-sentence-character(s)." Unfortunately we are confronted with an Adamsian Total Existence Failure with respect to such a standard.
Should the white space between an abbreviation ending in a period and the following word be equal to the white space between the end of a sentence and the following sentence? I think the answer is clearly no. Why would they be? The ending of a sentence indicates the end of a logical construct. The ending of an abbreviation is something wholly of a different character. If you must choose between ending a sentence in one or two spaces, use two.
The article and comments seem to center around the length of life of CDRs. The real story, I think, is the claim that magnetic tape is the way to go for archival purposes. This Kurt Gerecke must be a theorist or fundamental researcher because anyone (like me) who as actually had to retrieve something off of archived magnetic tape will tell you what bullshit this is.
Geography is also an important factor to consider. For example: If the animal in question to be tipped is located in Kansas, the calculation must also include the force exerted by an Intelligent Tipper.
Maybe I need to check my eyes, but what about that definition even suggests a "supreme being"?
The first (existing) definition: seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us,
implies and excludes attempts to explain observations using unnatural concepts. It is worded specifically to exclude supernatural explanations.
The second definition: continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena,
does not explicitly exclude descriptions of observed phenomena based on supernatural causes.
The new definition is a foot-in-the-door, so to speak, for allowing supernatural "theories" to be taught as scientific explanations for observed phenomena. There is nothing inherently wrong in teaching children in public schools about alternative explanations, but explanations which invoke supernatural causes are not scientific explanations. Science and the scientific method developed from the "natural philosophy" of the 18th century as intelluctually exclusive of religious explanations precisely because the religious explanations were so inadequate to explain mankind's rapidly expanding knowledge of the world.
"Natural" theories incorporating supernatural concepts are often more understandable and philosophically acceptable than elaborate scientific explanations and such ideas are important and should be taught, but not as part of a science curriculum. Rather than attempting to alter the definition of science, the board should consider changing the curriculum to include philosophy and religion classes in which non-scientific explanations for the world can be discussed.
Those coming before the Kansas Board of Education with the proposed rewording of the stadard definition of science are asking no less than to deny the existence of science as distinct from supernatural beliefs.
There is a danger for these creationsism advocates in that if supernatural beliefs are treated as science, they are subject to the same tests of experimentation and hypothesis as other natural phenomena an as such could, in principle, be proven false* or unsuitable as conceptual tools to explain the world.
---
*I know, I know, but really, if you want to test a hypothesis based on supernatural evidence such as, say, a divinely inspired text claiming that the world was made in seven days, it really isn't difficult to prove false based on observable evidence (something actually embraced by the intelligent-designists) by any useful standard.
Re:An accessible page, more types of fluids tested
on
Bang But No Splash
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The link to the AVI is erroneous on the parent's linked-to page. It should be:
You think reading about case mods is boring? Try watching the movies of these guys making their mods. Creezus fucking Jyste, this has to be some kind of slashnerd cultural lowpoint.
(The movies are linked to in the first post, BTW.)
I hope "Bit" is a qubit this time around. Wait. What will his answers be? Instead of "yes" or "no," can we expect a statement of probability? Maybe they'll dumb it down a bit (har) and have all Qubit's answers be "maybe."
The JPEG algorithm is unrivaled in its ability to compress grayscale images. This is partly achieved by the ingenious introduction of lovely green and purple artifacts.
I know we've all thought, "why [slap to forehead] didn't I think of that!" It seems so obvious now.
I wish the article had also included a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of foam-filled tires. Foam tires seem to be a very sensible approach to avoiding tire failure.
Speaking of secrets (or lack of), I'm absolutely amazed that this error has been described with such specificity. I think it says something positive about the investigation (and the investigators) into the failure that this information has been made public. If only other govenment agencies (and electronic voting machine makers) had the balls to expose this sort of mistake.
I think so.
Bush. Question #8
"We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs..."
Gee. Mary practiced abstinance, and look what happened to her.
Slashdot Mirror
The cylindrical magnets will naturally rotate to 'attract mode' thus gluing your board to the surface.
I don't endorse the parent poster's view, but what you and he/she refer to are different concepts.
FTFA: "They showed a section of DNA responsible for sensitivity to the cherry blossom scent was made more active in the mice's sperm." Oh. Gotcha. THAT section of DNA. Amazing that there are sections of DNA presumably responsible for 'sensitivity' to every possible scent, sound, and visual pattern. Either this is the worst bit of scientific journalism or the worst bit of science I've read in years.
Does anyone here regularly deal with actually retrieving data stored long term on tape? In theory, it seems sound. I don't do it regularly, but the few times I have had to request a retrieval of old data from tape it's been a complete waste of time. Lots of excuses. No data.
I wish I had some points to mod you up. You are correct. They could be using steel shot in shotguns for waterfowl hunting, but most likely the spark would be from secondary contact between a steel target (or can) and a rock or second piece of steel, I reckon.
Cry me a river. Can any of us really imagine the wasted effort over the years of supporting the diminishing few still using IE6? To be kind, it adds 10% to the cost of developing a standards compliant website. Multiplied by the millions of websites... it boggles what's left of my mind to think of what good could have been accomplished with those man hours. So fuck you and your legacy intranet shit that controls the pressure valves in "The Plant". Fuck all of your kind, and, please, die in a pressure-related explosion and watch me as I weep... but not for you. I weep for those of us who've slaved away our youth to fix the bug that is IE6!
Banks have classified "Government" information? What are these kids trying to achieve, exactly?
I don't think your implied correlation is valid: Democrats get more votes in wealthier counties because Democrats hate the poor.
Try this one: Democrats get more votes in wealthier counties because wealthier counties have a higher proportion of well-educated voters.
I have a cute narrative for DARPA. It's called Fuck You, Thought Police.
Bob was reading a book one day called, Fuck You, Thought Police.
Government thugs broke into his home, beat him, and took him to prison. They said he was a subversive. They said that although he hadn't committed any violent crime in the past, that he almost certainly would based on research conducted by well-meaning geeks who studied the effect of stories on people's thoughts and actions.
Bob was never heard from again.
The end.
How do I turn it off? I'm blinded by the SPEED! Is Intel stealing 15 year old marketing shtick from Gateway?
We hear copy editors, but more often typesetters whining about the two spaces contributing to the vertical river thing. Look. If you want the reader to logically follow your argument on the page and you respect your own thought process enough to trust the reader to come back and reread your sentences, then use the the two spaces. Individual sentences are easier to find that way. If all you care about is achieving a uniformly gray page, then try the single space.
I can still picture the side of the page (left or right) and approximate position on the page of passages of text I read as an undergraduate in certain books. I looked up just now two such passages I could think of and still have the books and both were from books with extra space between sentences. The pages of such books have distinct features. If all pages just look evenly gray memory is destroyed or not created to begin with in the reader. Either way two spaces is better.
The issue at hand has been with us for a very long time, but at the core it has nothing to do with keyboards or quantities of "spaces." It has to do with the display of symbols on printed pages. And in particular the failure to adequately include display information into the logical encoding of the symbols as distinct from their appearance on a page.
If we are just looking at words on a page, the question might be simply, should the white space between words be equal to the white space between sentences? If both sentences and words are demarcated only by space, then the answer must be no, for some method is needed to distinguish the logical structure of a sentence from a mere grouping of words. Given that we have additional sentence ending symbols, the answer should be effortless, but the symbols are vague. Ages ago, someone fucked up and used a period to indicate an abbreviated series of characters. Because of this, the character series period-space cannot sufficiently mark the logical ending of a sentence.
To restate the original question: "What character (or series of characters) is correctly used to indicate the end of a sentence structure within a series of symbols?" The correct answer is, and must by necessity always be, "The end-of-sentence-character(s)." Unfortunately we are confronted with an Adamsian Total Existence Failure with respect to such a standard.
Should the white space between an abbreviation ending in a period and the following word be equal to the white space between the end of a sentence and the following sentence? I think the answer is clearly no. Why would they be? The ending of a sentence indicates the end of a logical construct. The ending of an abbreviation is something wholly of a different character. If you must choose between ending a sentence in one or two spaces, use two.
The article and comments seem to center around the length of life of CDRs. The real story, I think, is the claim that magnetic tape is the way to go for archival purposes. This Kurt Gerecke must be a theorist or fundamental researcher because anyone (like me) who as actually had to retrieve something off of archived magnetic tape will tell you what bullshit this is.
Oops. Nevermind. I was thinking of Chumly. My mistake.
What's Tennessee Tuxedo really like? I bet he's a hoot to party with.
Geography is also an important factor to consider. For example: If the animal in question to be tipped is located in Kansas, the calculation must also include the force exerted by an Intelligent Tipper.
My furniture has been replicating itself for years.
s rb1.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dbsmith/furniture/
Maybe I need to check my eyes, but what about that definition even suggests a "supreme being"?
The first (existing) definition:
seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us,
implies and excludes attempts to explain observations using unnatural concepts. It is worded specifically to exclude supernatural explanations.
The second definition:
continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena,
does not explicitly exclude descriptions of observed phenomena based on supernatural causes.
The new definition is a foot-in-the-door, so to speak, for allowing supernatural "theories" to be taught as scientific explanations for observed phenomena. There is nothing inherently wrong in teaching children in public schools about alternative explanations, but explanations which invoke supernatural causes are not scientific explanations. Science and the scientific method developed from the "natural philosophy" of the 18th century as intelluctually exclusive of religious explanations precisely because the religious explanations were so inadequate to explain mankind's rapidly expanding knowledge of the world.
"Natural" theories incorporating supernatural concepts are often more understandable and philosophically acceptable than elaborate scientific explanations and such ideas are important and should be taught, but not as part of a science curriculum. Rather than attempting to alter the definition of science, the board should consider changing the curriculum to include philosophy and religion classes in which non-scientific explanations for the world can be discussed.
Those coming before the Kansas Board of Education with the proposed rewording of the stadard definition of science are asking no less than to deny the existence of science as distinct from supernatural beliefs.
There is a danger for these creationsism advocates in that if supernatural beliefs are treated as science, they are subject to the same tests of experimentation and hypothesis as other natural phenomena an as such could, in principle, be proven false* or unsuitable as conceptual tools to explain the world.
---
*I know, I know, but really, if you want to test a hypothesis based on supernatural evidence such as, say, a divinely inspired text claiming that the world was made in seven days, it really isn't difficult to prove false based on observable evidence (something actually embraced by the intelligent-designists) by any useful standard.
The link to the AVI is erroneous on the parent's linked-to page. It should be:
p lash.avi
http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050322.s
A marvelous movie!
You think reading about case mods is boring? Try watching the movies of these guys making their mods. Creezus fucking Jyste, this has to be some kind of slashnerd cultural lowpoint.
(The movies are linked to in the first post, BTW.)
I hope "Bit" is a qubit this time around. Wait. What will his answers be? Instead of "yes" or "no," can we expect a statement of probability? Maybe they'll dumb it down a bit (har) and have all Qubit's answers be "maybe."
The JPEG algorithm is unrivaled in its ability to compress grayscale images. This is partly achieved by the ingenious introduction of lovely green and purple artifacts. I know we've all thought, "why [slap to forehead] didn't I think of that!" It seems so obvious now.
I wish the article had also included a discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of foam-filled tires. Foam tires seem to be a very sensible approach to avoiding tire failure.
Speaking of secrets (or lack of), I'm absolutely amazed that this error has been described with such specificity. I think it says something positive about the investigation (and the investigators) into the failure that this information has been made public. If only other govenment agencies (and electronic voting machine makers) had the balls to expose this sort of mistake.
I think so. Bush. Question #8 "We will double Federal funding for abstinence programs..." Gee. Mary practiced abstinance, and look what happened to her.
Catholics are Christians. Any faith that believes in Jesus Christ is Christian.