The problem with the old method is that it's often a game of attrition, namely you keep dating until you give up on finding someone that you are lifetime compatible with, and settle whoever's around at the time.
Agreed. Mr Ludlow has the whole premise upside down to me.
When dating is expensive you are LESS likely to date around till you find a closely compatible person, and more likely to settle. He has the whole situation upside down.
It will take a few years to find out if internet dating will produce more enduring relationships, but the old method wasn't working all that well either. Some sites claim internet dating works better for the marriage minded. Other sources ask the divorce question in their headlines. (So we must invoke Betteridge).
One service actually publishes some numbers from an internal (and rather self congratulatory) study. They claim: "eHarmony couples had a 66.6% lower risk for divorce than would have been expected given eHarmony’s share of marriages in the population".
I suspect the study is rather flawed, but its the only one out there that I am aware of.
When you dig up the relevant page on JPL you learn that this close up image is clearly taken AFTER cleaning, not before. Its the post cleaned area, and the circular marks are left overs that the brush did not remove.
a series of incremental gains in knowledge and understanding amongst numerous fields that occasionally result in a milestone breakthrough
Well said. And it likely couldn't happen any other way. It is precisely the cleaning up of dangling strings or loose ends and filling in the gaps of knowledge where huge discoveries are occasionally made, and entire theories destroyed and replaced.
I am suspicious that Kuhn's paradigm shift were valid only during the formative years of science (specifically physics). The shifts - if they truly exist - have tended to become smaller asymptotically as science progresses.
I'm not so sure that shifts become smaller. Clearly there are a lot of small "fill in the gap" types of discoveries in any field. However, these smaller advancements of understanding were not the shifts that Kuhn was addressing.
These often give an appearance of being less to learn as your knowledge of a subject becomes more complete, until the world is blind-sided by some major discovery. Its always dangerous to assume there is complete knowledge of any field of Science
Discovery of DNA was an utterly world changing event, yet it appeared rather recently. It totally changed the fields of Biology, Genetics, Disease Control, Criminology, and half a dozen other fields. The concept of Solar Wind was utterly rejected for years until several spacecraft had measured it.
I'm sure one could name similar and on-going works in a large variety of fields. Some are probably being derided as utter folly today, but will be accepted as obvious in years to come.
Scientist, if not science itself, still is burdened with an unfortunate amount of Hubris.
Any large hospital would have fought this out in court and prevailed. Banks, State Agencies, Military, Doctors and Clinics all over the country have data losses all the time, but nobody gets fined. Because they all have insurance and lawyers. But find one little agency, who's patients never live long enough to sue them and they therefore don't need to retain a huge legal staff, and BAM sue them into the ground.
No it doesn't. For starters: such a fine is a good thing, but it should be payable to the victims of the data breach (as in: the people whose sensitive data was dumped on the street).
You did read the article right?
Of course not.
Nobodies data was abused. They didn't suffer any damages from the data breach. (You do know what a Hospice is, right? You understand that their clients could not possibly care less about a data breach?).
Be that as it may, fines are NEVER payable to individuals. The government simply pockets the money. Nobody is taught any lessons, other than to raise their prices to pay for even more insurance.
The more you dig into it, the less proof there is that pencils ever contained lead. Even your linked site makes only a unsubstantiated claim in passing.
You're confusing media-encoding with telephony. Media encoding occurs in non-realtime, so you can analyze a big chunk of data and plan ahead for both silence and bursts. Telephony is realtime. The more you delay the audio for analysis, the more annoying it becomes to the people having the conversation. With realtime telephony, you don't HAVE "X seconds" to buffer and delay transmission so you can analyze a chunk of audio that long.
Wait, wait, wait,...
Skype is already sending silence packets. Its ALREADY made the determination that it has silence, and packaged (something) differently.
So that pretty much makes the rest of what you said either totally wrong, or non germane.
But, you take a large group of people that have all the other risks for becoming criminals and add lead on top of that and you get a significant rise in crime.
Well that's the theory put forth here.
From TFA:
Tulane University toxicologist Howard W. Mielke found that children exposed to high levels of lead in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a significant uptick in crime 20 years later.
greater than 90% of violent criminals arrested during those two decades were all cigarette smokers
Citation Needed.
Nearly 90% violent criminals arrested during those two decades were MALE. Cigarettes and/or Lead exposure was not gender specific, yet murder statistics are. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.;-)
I would love to hear a scientific (not political) discussion of how they screwed up.
Well, one could start by looking into the seemingly disproportional effect lead would have to have on males vs females if their theory were to hold any water.
The offending rates for females declined since the early 1980's but stabilized after 1999. Offending rates for males peaked in the early 1990's, fell to record lows,and stabilized in recent years. Female murder rates show no characteristic peaks related to the peak exposure to lead.
Why not send them where the current 70 byte packets are sent? After all, this decision has already been made and implemented in the Skype protocol, as they are doing one or the other already.
First, I misspoke, and should have been mentioning milliseconds rather than seconds. But, still, a keep alive packet arriving once a second should be sufficient, wouldn't you think?
You would think that a packet specifying X seconds of simulated silence could be packed into a few bits, so maybe two bytes should suffice.
Clearly there is something else going on, or they would not have designed such a large packet to "represent silence". That one can distinguish the silence packets from the voice packets doesn't speak too well of the encryption that Skype has always claimed they use.
...about their government. If a Chinese citizen uses Google and searches for something which the People's Republic of China somehow considers unacceptable, it isn't Google's job to warn him - it's the citizen's job to understand the laws of his country and honor them as he/she sees fit.
Now, if you want to complain about somebody, complain about the People's Republic of China. It's THEIR laws and policies which make this a threat to free speech, not Google's capitulation to the lawful government of China.
Logically, people in the box can't even know they are in the box or, that the box even exists. Google was not trying to circumvent Chinese laws against accessing certain things on the internet, but merely telling their users what to avoid. Even that is not permitted, in other words: the People are not allowed to know that the box exists.
(Probably the Chinese internet users are not that clueless. Given a few generations, they will be.)
But your suggestion that people complain about the PRC instead of Google seems pretty pointless. To whom should these complaints be addressed? Perhaps to the "Lawful Government of China"? Would they ever even hear such complaints? After all the "Lawful Government of China" has surely blocked such complaints at the great firewall.
And wouldn't complaining about the "Lawful Government of China", perhaps to "Lawful Government of China", be meddling in the lawful administration of a foreign government? Why would the "Lawful Government of China" listen to your complaints? Would you accept such meddling from foreign sources into the Lawful Government of the US?
Your only logically consistent argument should have been that "Google did the right thing, and everybody who does not like it should STFU because the "Lawful Government of China" has proscribed such discussions."
As recently as 2007 this was clearly not the case.
It was only after several years on the job that she was caught with bomb designs in her trailer and fired. But the investigation reveals that Quintana had taken her cell phone into a vault filled with secret documents where she worked — another major security violation. She also had access to a high-speed classified printer, even though such access was "not required by her job," and used the device to run off hundreds of copies of classified documents that she also brought home.
An air gap certainly makes sense in places like this, (and far more secretive places).
But that particular lab has a horrible history with security issues. Just Google Security Breach Los Alamos. Its been far too easy to foreign nationals employed there, and security has always been pretty lax.
However one must entertain the idea that not everyone working there is entirely clueless, and they have some evidence of rogue network traffic, or some other evidence of breach, or potential for same.
After all LANL has been thumbing their collective nose at congress for decades, and to suddenly do an about face when a not particularly security conscious administration is in power seems pretty unusual.
Its just as likely the plan is to force the installation of routers that can be monitored by the NSA.
Physical copies of pictures from 50 years ago stored in common household conditions are barely legible. Digital photos at least have the advantage of consistently producing exact copies, so with a bit of care you can indefinitely prolong their lives. With paper or film you're copying already deteriorated image with techniques that add their own imperfections to blur and blemishes of previous copyings and years.
Ah, no, the 50 year old photos stored in the common household shoebox are, more often than not, perfectly "legible". Virtually always so if they were in black and white.
In fact the lament of the current generation of digital photos is that they ALL die with the first hard disk failure, or on-line account lapse, or they are buried under a mountain of crap in a Facebook account.
The old printed snapshots usually required a much larger disaster such as a fire or flood to totally destroy them.
Because virtually nobody prints digital photos, just about the only people who ever see them are the original photographer. Nobody has the coffee table photo book anymore. These used to be easy to create, the natural side product of having to have your film developed and printed. Now you have to have special papers, Ink, a pretty good printer, and a lot of technical skill and patience to print them out at home. Photo albums are actually harder to make today.
As for showing your digital photos, the only thing worse than the obligatory slide show is hovering over someone's shoulder looking at photos on a laptop, or the few emailed samples.
He didn't even define "stationary". Nor did he address the fact that German cars already have backup cameras. He seems to know of one particular law and thinks it applies to every case.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the old method is that it's often a game of attrition, namely you keep dating until you give up on finding someone that you are lifetime compatible with, and settle whoever's around at the time.
Agreed. Mr Ludlow has the whole premise upside down to me.
When dating is expensive you are LESS likely to date around till you find a closely compatible person, and more likely to settle.
He has the whole situation upside down.
It will take a few years to find out if internet dating will produce more enduring relationships, but the old method wasn't working
all that well either. Some sites claim internet dating works better for the marriage minded. Other sources ask the divorce question in their headlines. (So we must invoke Betteridge).
One service actually publishes some numbers from an internal (and rather self congratulatory) study. They claim: "eHarmony couples had a 66.6% lower risk for divorce than would have been expected given eHarmony’s share of marriages in the population".
I suspect the study is rather flawed, but its the only one out there that I am aware of.
I'm feeling a bit dim... I only see a cleaned image and a close up of the cleaned area.
Would you mind linking to the pre-cleaning image?
Its this image: http://blogs.discovery.com/.a/6a00d8341bf67c53ef017c356d7348970b-pi
When you dig up the relevant page on JPL you learn that this close up image is clearly taken AFTER cleaning, not before. Its the post cleaned area, and the circular marks are left overs that the brush did not remove.
Wire Brushes are pretty resilient. Pretty cheap too.
a series of incremental gains in knowledge and understanding amongst numerous fields that occasionally result in a milestone breakthrough
Well said. And it likely couldn't happen any other way. It is precisely the cleaning up of dangling strings or loose ends and filling in the gaps of knowledge where huge discoveries are occasionally made, and entire theories destroyed and replaced.
I am suspicious that Kuhn's paradigm shift were valid only during the formative years of science (specifically physics). The shifts - if they truly exist - have tended to become smaller asymptotically as science progresses.
I'm not so sure that shifts become smaller.
Clearly there are a lot of small "fill in the gap" types of discoveries in any field.
However, these smaller advancements of understanding were not the shifts that Kuhn was addressing.
These often give an appearance of being less to learn as your knowledge of a subject becomes more complete, until the world is blind-sided by some major discovery. Its always dangerous to assume there is complete knowledge of any field of Science
Discovery of DNA was an utterly world changing event, yet it appeared rather recently. It totally changed the fields of Biology, Genetics, Disease Control, Criminology, and half a dozen other fields. The concept of Solar Wind was utterly rejected for years until several spacecraft had measured it.
I'm sure one could name similar and on-going works in a large variety of fields. Some are probably being derided as utter folly today, but will be accepted as obvious in years to come.
Scientist, if not science itself, still is burdened with an unfortunate amount of Hubris.
Exactly.
Any large hospital would have fought this out in court and prevailed.
Banks, State Agencies, Military, Doctors and Clinics all over the country have data losses all the time, but
nobody gets fined. Because they all have insurance and lawyers.
But find one little agency, who's patients never live long enough to sue them and they therefore don't need
to retain a huge legal staff, and BAM sue them into the ground.
No it doesn't. For starters: such a fine is a good thing, but it should be payable to the victims of the data breach (as in: the people whose sensitive data was dumped on the street).
You did read the article right?
Of course not.
Nobodies data was abused. They didn't suffer any damages from the data breach.
(You do know what a Hospice is, right? You understand that their clients could not possibly care less about a data breach?).
Be that as it may, fines are NEVER payable to individuals. The government simply pockets the money.
Nobody is taught any lessons, other than to raise their prices to pay for even more insurance.
The more you dig into it, the less proof there is that pencils ever contained lead. Even your linked site makes only a unsubstantiated claim in passing.
Since pencils have NEVER contained lead, I prefer to believe it was the former.
You're confusing media-encoding with telephony. Media encoding occurs in non-realtime, so you can analyze a big chunk of data and plan ahead for both silence and bursts. Telephony is realtime. The more you delay the audio for analysis, the more annoying it becomes to the people having the conversation. With realtime telephony, you don't HAVE "X seconds" to buffer and delay transmission so you can analyze a chunk of audio that long.
Wait, wait, wait,...
Skype is already sending silence packets. Its ALREADY made the determination that it has silence, and packaged (something) differently.
So that pretty much makes the rest of what you said either totally wrong, or non germane.
mod parent up.
But, you take a large group of people that have all the other risks for becoming criminals and add lead on top of that and you get a significant rise in crime.
Well that's the theory put forth here.
From TFA:
Tulane University toxicologist Howard W. Mielke found that children exposed to high levels of lead in the 1960s and 1970s resulted in a significant uptick in crime 20 years later.
However, left un-explained is why the lead only caused a significant rise in male crime in the cited time period. Unless they can explain why there was no uptick in female offenders, there appears to be a flaw in their reasoning.
greater than 90% of violent criminals arrested during those two decades were all cigarette smokers
Citation Needed.
Nearly 90% violent criminals arrested during those two decades were MALE. ;-)
Cigarettes and/or Lead exposure was not gender specific, yet murder statistics are.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
I would love to hear a scientific (not political) discussion of how they screwed up.
Well, one could start by looking into the seemingly disproportional effect lead would have to have on males vs females if their theory were to hold any water.
The offending rates for females declined since the early 1980's but stabilized after 1999. Offending rates for males peaked in the early 1990's, fell to record lows,and stabilized in recent years. Female murder rates show no characteristic peaks related to the peak exposure to lead.
Chart Here.
Data here.
Please just Google Los Alamos and Security Breach, or, I don't know, maybe click the link in the message you replied to?
Don't pontificate about standards that appear to be honored only in the breach.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
It never ceases to amaze me the degree to which some ACs are impervious to humor.
Why not send them where the current 70 byte packets are sent?
After all, this decision has already been made and implemented in the Skype protocol, as they are doing one or the other already.
First, I misspoke, and should have been mentioning milliseconds rather than seconds.
But, still, a keep alive packet arriving once a second should be sufficient, wouldn't you think?
Exactly what I was thinking.
You would think that a packet specifying X seconds of simulated silence could be packed into a few bits, so maybe two bytes should suffice.
Clearly there is something else going on, or they would not have designed such a large packet to "represent silence".
That one can distinguish the silence packets from the voice packets doesn't speak too well of the encryption that Skype has always claimed they use.
Whoosh.
...about their government. If a Chinese citizen uses Google and searches for something which the People's Republic of China somehow considers unacceptable, it isn't Google's job to warn him - it's the citizen's job to understand the laws of his country and honor them as he/she sees fit.
Now, if you want to complain about somebody, complain about the People's Republic of China. It's THEIR laws and policies which make this a threat to free speech, not Google's capitulation to the lawful government of China.
Logically, people in the box can't even know they are in the box or, that the box even exists.
Google was not trying to circumvent Chinese laws against accessing certain things on the internet, but merely telling their users what to avoid.
Even that is not permitted, in other words: the People are not allowed to know that the box exists.
(Probably the Chinese internet users are not that clueless. Given a few generations, they will be.)
But your suggestion that people complain about the PRC instead of Google seems pretty pointless.
To whom should these complaints be addressed? Perhaps to the "Lawful Government of China"?
Would they ever even hear such complaints? After all the "Lawful Government of China" has surely blocked such complaints at the great firewall.
And wouldn't complaining about the "Lawful Government of China", perhaps to "Lawful Government of China", be meddling in the lawful administration of a foreign government? Why would the "Lawful Government of China" listen to your complaints? Would you accept such meddling from foreign sources into the Lawful Government of the US?
Your only logically consistent argument should have been that "Google did the right thing, and everybody who does not like it should STFU because the "Lawful Government of China" has proscribed such discussions."
Seriously, You know this? How?
As recently as 2007 this was clearly not the case.
It was only after several years on the job that she was caught with bomb designs in her trailer and fired. But the investigation reveals that Quintana had taken her cell phone into a vault filled with secret documents where she worked — another major security violation. She also had access to a high-speed classified printer, even though such access was "not required by her job," and used the device to run off hundreds of copies of classified documents that she also brought home.
See: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1612912,00.html
An air gap certainly makes sense in places like this, (and far more secretive places).
But that particular lab has a horrible history with security issues. Just Google Security Breach Los Alamos.
Its been far too easy to foreign nationals employed there, and security has always been pretty lax.
However one must entertain the idea that not everyone working there is entirely clueless, and they have some evidence of rogue network traffic, or some other evidence of breach, or potential for same.
After all LANL has been thumbing their collective nose at congress for decades, and to suddenly do an about face when a not particularly security conscious administration is in power seems pretty unusual.
Its just as likely the plan is to force the installation of routers that can be monitored by the NSA.
Physical copies of pictures from 50 years ago stored in common household conditions are barely legible. Digital photos at least have the advantage of consistently producing exact copies, so with a bit of care you can indefinitely prolong their lives. With paper or film you're copying already deteriorated image with techniques that add their own imperfections to blur and blemishes of previous copyings and years.
Ah, no, the 50 year old photos stored in the common household shoebox are, more often than not, perfectly "legible".
Virtually always so if they were in black and white.
In fact the lament of the current generation of digital photos is that they ALL die with the first hard disk failure, or
on-line account lapse, or they are buried under a mountain of crap in a Facebook account.
The old printed snapshots usually required a much larger disaster such as a fire or flood to totally destroy them.
Because virtually nobody prints digital photos, just about the only people who ever see them are the original photographer.
Nobody has the coffee table photo book anymore. These used to be easy to create, the natural side product of having to
have your film developed and printed.
Now you have to have special papers, Ink, a pretty good printer, and a lot of technical skill and patience to print them out at home.
Photo albums are actually harder to make today.
As for showing your digital photos, the only thing worse than the obligatory slide show is hovering over someone's shoulder
looking at photos on a laptop, or the few emailed samples.
He didn't even define "stationary".
Nor did he address the fact that German cars already have backup cameras. He seems to know of one particular law and thinks it applies to every case.