Employee is in wrong position, if was able to successfully find / hire / manage a highly competent programmer in China.
I don't think you want this guy as your program manager. Look at the facts. He was paid $X and paid somebody to do his job for less. He isn't making any extra money and in fact is taking home less money than if he did the job himself (and since he isn't a business, he can't even deduct the outsourcing expense from taxable income). The guy still had to show up at work each day (where he would just surf the net), but his outsourcing activities didn't free him up to do other programming which would bring him additional revenue.
No, the only reason to do something like this is because you are incompetent at the job you were hired for and need to cover that up, or you are an idiot because you are giving away a large chunk of your pay so you can surf the net. Neither of those are qualities that I would want in a manager.
Well that would be easy enough to check. Just take kids from poor neighborhoods and without access to good education who did not smoke pot and see if their IQ declined later in life. If the pot isn't a factor, then the IQ should drop just the same as in the people who smoked pot. Or, if the pot is a factor, then do the same study, but with rich kids who had access to a good education. If the pot is the factor, then their IQ should have dropped, too.
A backscatter x-ray device is not the same as a medical x-ray machine.
That's what I said.
Sooner or later, they will have medical backscatter X-Ray. They'll figure out signal processing or something to make it useful.
No, they won't. Just like a radar detector can use microwaves does not cook your food, nor does your microwave say how fast you are going, a backscatter x-ray cannot be used for medical imaging because the way it works is not precise, but relies on the x-rays bouncing around. There simply is not enough resolution at a dosage that would not be harmful. X-rays for medical use work like a camera. The x-ray is a focused beam, through a lens with the film or the ccd having to be at the correct focal length or the image is out of focus. The same is true with back scatter, because of the way it works, the beam is not focused in a way that would provide detail that could be used for medical diagnostics. This can be remedied by either increasing the amount of radiation (which would make it hazardous, like traditional x-rays) or narrowing the beam, effectively meaning it was no longer backscatter.x-ray, but instead traditional x-ray.
Put differently, just because two devices use a similar portion of the electromagnetic spectrum does not make them interchangeable. Backscatter x-ray and medical x-ray, both utilize the same portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Then again, so does a pulsar. However, none of them are interchangeable.
Will CT and MRI machines continue to get smaller than the room sized equipment of yesterday, yes. But they cannot become handsized, but they will always have to be larger than what they are trying to image. It's a matter of physics.
That's what they said about X-Ray machines. Now they have portable backscatter rigs.
A backscatter x-ray device is not the same as a medical x-ray machine. Backscatter x-ray is low dose x-ray to detect metal, it is not a high dose, concetrated burst to pass through skin to detect bones and particularly fractures in bones. I doubt you would want to hold that in your hand, but maybe you would.
Just because it uses x-rays doesn't make it the same thing. I have a welding magnet on my workbench, but that doesn't mean I have a portable MRI machine.
Neglect your economy and everything else suffers. Basically humanity's progress forward slows and our long term we do more damage to the planet by being forced to rely on dirty technologies for longer. They are the ones who are short sighted.
That should be neglect your environment and everything else suffers. Just ask China. The economy is predicated on the environment. If the economy destroys the environment either locally or regionally (let alone globally), then the economy fails in those areas. You cannot have an economy without people to support it. If the evironment on the production side of the economy is not conducive to people thriving, then you cannot produce and your economy will falter.
So, if you neglect the environment, then eventually, progress slows, quality of life declines and all sorts of other negative social problems arise. All of this happens with the economy, too, but, the economy is not the base of the pyramid, it is about midway up.
fossil fuel use has driven human progress and extended human life.
Actually, there is no data to support that hypothesis. Average life expectancy had been increasing before the abundant use of fossil fuel. Most scientists beleive it has more to do with adequate food and clean water sources versus fossil fuel itself. This is evidenced in areas where there are not adequate food sources and life expectancy is low. After food and water, the next major influence on life expectancy was pharmacology.
While fossil fuel may contribute to these things, it has not been the driving agent on extending human life or even progress if one takes into account the history of all humankind.
I understand, and even agree with with the sentiment you were originally posting. I was just pointing out that your post lacked citations, which technically made it no more valid than the posts you were complaining about.
Wow man. Don't you pay attention to anything coming out of oh...the middle east these days? Or Pakistan, or islamist parts of Africa or Asia? It's all the zionists fault or the jews, or the americans.
You miss the point. The OP was complaining about people accepting things on the internet without checking facts. All I asked was for the data or reference to support that statement. But then, from the sound of your post, you don't sound like an avid fact checker, either.
The probability may be 1 in 1,000,000,000, but in a world with 7,000,000,000 people on it, it becomes... likely.
Oops, that was supposed to read 1 in 6,000,000,000! but even at a 1:7 ratio, that is still only a 14.7% likelihood, so not likely at all, and far from "normal" as the article stated.
I need to go to bed. I don't know where the 14.7% comment came from. 1 in 1,000,000,000 would imply 7 people on the planet could pull it off, not very likely at all.
The probability may be 1 in 1,000,000,000, but in a world with 7,000,000,000 people on it, it becomes... likely.
Oops, that was supposed to read 1 in 6,000,000,000! but even at a 1:7 ratio, that is still only a 14.7% likelihood, so not likely at all, and far from "normal" as the article stated.
I assume you mean my statement, but no, it cannot and never will be done. The very nature of how MRI and CT scans work will keep them from being hand held. For them to work, the body part being scanned needs to fit inside the device because the transmitter (whether magnetic or radiation) and the receiver need to be opposite each other (think of a traditional x-ray, the film has to be opposite the radiation source). CT would also need radiation shielding. Finally, both will need some heavy duty computer processing and some sort of high resolution screen to visualize the image on. Even with computers get smaller and smaller and screens getting higher and higher resolution, unless you are talking about a device that can only scan somebody's finger, it cannot and will never be hand held because the physics involved with how the device works precludes that. Will CT and MRI machines continue to get smaller than the room sized equipment of yesterday, yes. But they cannot become handsized, but they will always have to be larger than what they are trying to image. It's a matter of physics.
If you think that people who understand statistics are immunized against magical thinking I have a bridge to sell you.
A suitable knowledge of mathematics allows you to calculate correct answers to problems that intuition provides lousy answers to; but that doesn't make intution shut up, unfortunately.
If you dangle somebody from a crane, hundreds of feet above the ground and all those teeny little figures walking about, does that person's heart rate, blood pressure, adrenaline levels, and similar fear responses have any useful correlation to their knowledge of the tensile strength of the steel cable they are attached to?
Actually, intuition is pretty darn important, even in math, at least theoretical math. Stephen Hawkins relies on intuition. So did Einstein. So do numerous others. Intuition isn't always correct, but without it, analytical thought can't really develop.
Besides, even mat itself isn't as concrete as we want to make it. Math tells us that the square root of a number is a value that, when multiplied by itself, gives the number. No magic involved there. However, much of physics relies on imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one). Imaginary number or magical thinking, you tell me.
Not only is there the improbable out there, there are also outright slanders. Particularly against Israel and the US. All sorts of conspiracy junk that blames them for the world's ills and based on falsehoods that are trivially easy to disprove with facts. However, idiots lap it up. Just wait for the flames in reply to this post - and watch how people with froth at the mouth based on cherished falsehoods rather than quoting actual *facts*. It is incredible just how backward the world has become, that people will hate blindly without ever checking any facts whatsoever (accepting false *facts* from propagandists instead). Cue the rants...
Hogwash! It doesn't matter how many improbable things appear online. It won't actually change the probability of something that is improbable happening. If the likelihood of being thrown through the windshield and landing on your feet and running away is 1 in 1,000,000,000, then it is still the same probability regardless of how many people saw a clip of it on you-tube.
So, unless the original post is positing that somehow observing the improbable event by millions of people on you-tube is going to cause a quantum change (which would be an interesting discussion), the probability remains unchanged.
Does this hail the rebirth of religion? Or perhaps the renaissance of sci-fi in 5-10 years?
I would think it is just the opposite. Religion(s) formed prior to mass communication, the the relaying of the improbable to the masses causing a change in belief would not be in effect. Likewise, that would probably be evidence that the premise of the article is, well, improbable, too.
It seems the bio-bed would be the first step and much more practical. Once that was perfected, then a miniaturized (ie hand held) version would come along. Besides, at least for a bio-bed, you have to lie down on it. A tri-corder, somebody could scan you without your knowing (as evidence on several Star Trek episodes).
We have a newborn and I was a little frustrated how little data is obtained from a fetal ultrasound. Surely, with the right processing, a more accurate model could be constructed of a fetus/internal organs from these units? I don't think there's any way to fit an MRI or CT in the palm of your hand, but maybe a small ultrasound device?
If you had to have a c-section and they didn't have to stick a needle into your uterus to obtain amniotic fluid to determine if the baby's lungs were mature enough, you can thank your ultrasound. It's original purpose was to enable a trained practitioner to tell what was going on inside you (whether in the womb, or the heart, or where ever it was being used). It was never intended to provide the resolution of an MRI or CT scan, nor would those scans be beneficial in most pregnancies, unless there was the suspicion of something already being seriously wrong.
Fetal ultrasounds can be very detailed, of course, they are usually trans-vaginal then, instead of external and the patient has to be very still, just like for an MRI or CT scan (just not as long). As with an MRI or CT scan, it is really the image processing software that makes the image look so detailed. That software is usually not applied to an ultrasound, but has been for special images in the womb. But, when the purpose of the test is simply to determine how far along a pregnancy is, you usually aren't going to spend the extra thousands of dollars to produce those images.
As for small devices, because of how they work, it is unlikely that there will ever be small hand held MRI or CT scanners. There are smaller "open" MRIs instead of the big tube, but their images are much inferior to the full MRI machines. On the other hand, there already are small hand held ultrasounds. They can be used in the field to check for clots and obstructions very quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't even an "app" for that.
Of course the trend is on touch screens on laptops. Windows 8 really requires it and if you want to be able to put that silly little Designed for Windows 8 sticker on your laptop, it has to be touchscreen. Laptops are coming out with touchscreens, not because of consumer demand, but because Microsoft is telling the manufactures to make them or else. It's Microsoft's edge over Apple's OS X.
The problem is that touchscreens on laptops and desktops have been around for quite awhile. What Microsoft doesn't realize is that this strategy can really blow up in their face if there isn't new software designed specifically to take advantage of a touch screen interface (which would be vastly different than current applicaitons) AND still be productive for real work. Consumers won't equate a useless touchscreen with Dell or HP or . They will equate it with Windows.
Look at the frustrations in the linux world with Gnome 3 and Unity interfaces, touch like interfaces may be fine for your tablet and for consuming information, but if you have real work to do, work that requires the creation of data, say in a business or research setting, touch screens are less than ideal. That might also be one of the reasons why corporate America seems to be skipping over Windows 8 and hoping the next version is better suited towards their needs.
Here's a novel idea, what kind of interface are Microsoft's programmers, business analysts and bookkeepers using for their day to day work? Do they use a keyboard or a touchscreen?
MIT's study is flawed. Entrepreneurs aren't better innovators than managers. Successful entrepreneurs may be better innovators, but not entrepreneurs taken as a whole. Since over half of all small businesses fail, if you include those numbers in the base, then entrepreneurs are not more successful.
To succeed, you have to first have an idea. Then you have to be able to capitalize on that idea. Unless you are already very successful, most entrepreneurs have to bring in outside capital which means they also give up some (to a lot) of control of their company, or at least their idea. At that point, they are in the same position as a manager, who has an idea, but not the control of that idea either, because the rest of the organizaiton takes over.
So, either compare successful entrepreneurs to successful managers or compare all entrepreneurs to all managers, but don't mix and match.
And as I said, just because it was let go by before does not mean it was okay, even before. It just means they didn't voice objection till now. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to the merit of this particular complaint, but the argument 'well they didn't complain before' is very weak.
Actually, the argument that they didn't complain before is very substantial when you are claiming that it is a violation of your religious or moral principals. If every thing is set back to the way it was and it is still a problem, then it would indicate that something else is either the problem or your religious or moral principals have changed.
Even if the assumption is made that the old way also violated their religious principals, but they chose not to object and now that it has been returned back to the old way and they choose to object, something by definition has had to change, either externally or internally. Until finding out what that is, one doesn't know what the real issue or problem is. Without knowing what the real issue or problem is, one cannot offer a real solution.
In short, it doesn't matter that it was okay before or not. It was not objectionable before as evidenced by the fact that the family did not object. Now it is objectionable. So, with implying nothing wrong with the change of position, it still leaves the question of what has caused the changed?
Worthless, in my opinion. When I was project manager for several large projects, some of them had timed coding tests some did not. All the timed coding tests showed is who could code quickly, but not how well they could work together as a team. A successful project, defined as being delivered on time and under budget comes from effective team work and that is the number one requirement. It has been my experience, and I have worked with probably tens of thousands programmers over the decades, that the speediest programmers, while very good at what they do, tend to be lone rangers instead of team players (that is not always the case, but is more often than not).
The other problem with timed coding is very often when hiring a programmer, they may be excellent in one language, which is great for this project, but not the next, or vice versa. Such tests only show a snapshot at a specific moment of time and again, then you have to figure out if they are too well versed in whatever language you are testing them for, how adaptable will they be on the next project? If they are a great C programmer and now need to be on a team involved with Java (after training, of course) will they still hold on to the way they did it in C or will they embrace new (for them) ways of doing things?
Basing your hiring decisions, or even just who will make the cut, cannot answer those types of questions and is useful as saying an individual must have a computer science degree while ignoring what other experience they may have. It does make the hiring process easy, because it is something quantifiable, but it hardly guarantees the best candidate will be chosen.
Here is a thought. The US is a capitalistic society. Why is the government funding this? If there is a resource shortage, isn't the private sector the solution? Or is it that the private sector is only the solution once all the hard stuff has been paid for by the taxpayer?
Schools probably banned metal lunchboxes as potential dangerous weapons.
If you carry an Altoids tin, they probably assume you're storing contraband drugs (like aspirin) in it.
They make those aluminum wallets and metal business card holders. As for Altoids, they can assume what they want. They would have to prove it is contraband drugs in it. As for lunchboxes, yes, those were banned because they were considered to be possible weapons. We should have seen that coming when they first banned the extended 30 lunch box clip.
To much of a potential weapon. Banned.
All kidding aside...that might not be a joke for some schools.
Yeah, I thought twice about posting my comment giving the recent shooting. But my thoughts were more about the knee jerk reaction to the shooting and that it only takes two seconds to swap out a standard 10 shot clip, so the 30 shot clip is not significantly more deadly than multiple 10 shot clips. Likewise, with the lunchboxes, which were banned, because they can be used as a weapon to hit somebody upside the head - well, I'd rather be hit upside the head with an 8 ounce lunch box than a 4 pound laptop, but nobody is clambering to band laptops at schools. I figure if somebody wants to do harm to another human being, they are going to find a way to do it.
But I do agree that school violence is a serious issue. I just think, though, that it is a symptom of a bigger underlying problem and until society addresses the real problem, a lot of resources will be expended solving the wrong thing.
The same could be said about the RFID issue. If the purpose is to ensure the students are their for state funding, the first question to ask is "Why does the state require that?" Why not fund based on registered students? Seems to be a lot simpler and you could do random spot checks in a district to verify accuracy. Besides, if 10% of the kids are missing (2 kids from each class) on any given day, you can't cut staff, you need the same number of teachers, which is your primary cost.
No, just like gun control won't actually keep our kids from being harmed by somebody intent on harming them (for the record, I am pro gun control), electronically tagging them won't make them attend class, either. To solve a problem, you first need to ask the right question.
Slashdot Mirror
Employee is in wrong position, if was able to successfully find / hire / manage a highly competent programmer in China.
I don't think you want this guy as your program manager. Look at the facts. He was paid $X and paid somebody to do his job for less. He isn't making any extra money and in fact is taking home less money than if he did the job himself (and since he isn't a business, he can't even deduct the outsourcing expense from taxable income). The guy still had to show up at work each day (where he would just surf the net), but his outsourcing activities didn't free him up to do other programming which would bring him additional revenue.
No, the only reason to do something like this is because you are incompetent at the job you were hired for and need to cover that up, or you are an idiot because you are giving away a large chunk of your pay so you can surf the net. Neither of those are qualities that I would want in a manager.
Well that would be easy enough to check. Just take kids from poor neighborhoods and without access to good education who did not smoke pot and see if their IQ declined later in life. If the pot isn't a factor, then the IQ should drop just the same as in the people who smoked pot. Or, if the pot is a factor, then do the same study, but with rich kids who had access to a good education. If the pot is the factor, then their IQ should have dropped, too.
A backscatter x-ray device is not the same as a medical x-ray machine.
That's what I said.
Sooner or later, they will have medical backscatter X-Ray. They'll figure out signal processing or something to make it useful.
No, they won't. Just like a radar detector can use microwaves does not cook your food, nor does your microwave say how fast you are going, a backscatter x-ray cannot be used for medical imaging because the way it works is not precise, but relies on the x-rays bouncing around. There simply is not enough resolution at a dosage that would not be harmful. X-rays for medical use work like a camera. The x-ray is a focused beam, through a lens with the film or the ccd having to be at the correct focal length or the image is out of focus. The same is true with back scatter, because of the way it works, the beam is not focused in a way that would provide detail that could be used for medical diagnostics. This can be remedied by either increasing the amount of radiation (which would make it hazardous, like traditional x-rays) or narrowing the beam, effectively meaning it was no longer backscatter.x-ray, but instead traditional x-ray.
Put differently, just because two devices use a similar portion of the electromagnetic spectrum does not make them interchangeable. Backscatter x-ray and medical x-ray, both utilize the same portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Then again, so does a pulsar. However, none of them are interchangeable.
Will CT and MRI machines continue to get smaller than the room sized equipment of yesterday, yes. But they cannot become handsized, but they will always have to be larger than what they are trying to image. It's a matter of physics.
That's what they said about X-Ray machines. Now they have portable backscatter rigs.
A backscatter x-ray device is not the same as a medical x-ray machine. Backscatter x-ray is low dose x-ray to detect metal, it is not a high dose, concetrated burst to pass through skin to detect bones and particularly fractures in bones. I doubt you would want to hold that in your hand, but maybe you would.
Just because it uses x-rays doesn't make it the same thing. I have a welding magnet on my workbench, but that doesn't mean I have a portable MRI machine.
Neglect your economy and everything else suffers. Basically humanity's progress forward slows and our long term we do more damage to the planet by being forced to rely on dirty technologies for longer. They are the ones who are short sighted.
That should be neglect your environment and everything else suffers. Just ask China. The economy is predicated on the environment. If the economy destroys the environment either locally or regionally (let alone globally), then the economy fails in those areas. You cannot have an economy without people to support it. If the evironment on the production side of the economy is not conducive to people thriving, then you cannot produce and your economy will falter.
So, if you neglect the environment, then eventually, progress slows, quality of life declines and all sorts of other negative social problems arise. All of this happens with the economy, too, but, the economy is not the base of the pyramid, it is about midway up.
fossil fuel use has driven human progress and extended human life.
Actually, there is no data to support that hypothesis. Average life expectancy had been increasing before the abundant use of fossil fuel. Most scientists beleive it has more to do with adequate food and clean water sources versus fossil fuel itself. This is evidenced in areas where there are not adequate food sources and life expectancy is low. After food and water, the next major influence on life expectancy was pharmacology.
While fossil fuel may contribute to these things, it has not been the driving agent on extending human life or even progress if one takes into account the history of all humankind.
Here in the Midwest, it is only 5 minutes to 6:00, since we are -6 GMT
I understand, and even agree with with the sentiment you were originally posting. I was just pointing out that your post lacked citations, which technically made it no more valid than the posts you were complaining about.
Facts or references, please.
Wow man. Don't you pay attention to anything coming out of oh...the middle east these days? Or Pakistan, or islamist parts of Africa or Asia? It's all the zionists fault or the jews, or the americans.
You miss the point. The OP was complaining about people accepting things on the internet without checking facts. All I asked was for the data or reference to support that statement. But then, from the sound of your post, you don't sound like an avid fact checker, either.
The probability may be 1 in 1,000,000,000, but in a world with 7,000,000,000 people on it, it becomes... likely.
Oops, that was supposed to read 1 in 6,000,000,000! but even at a 1:7 ratio, that is still only a 14.7% likelihood, so not likely at all, and far from "normal" as the article stated.
I need to go to bed. I don't know where the 14.7% comment came from. 1 in 1,000,000,000 would imply 7 people on the planet could pull it off, not very likely at all.
The probability may be 1 in 1,000,000,000, but in a world with 7,000,000,000 people on it, it becomes... likely.
Oops, that was supposed to read 1 in 6,000,000,000! but even at a 1:7 ratio, that is still only a 14.7% likelihood, so not likely at all, and far from "normal" as the article stated.
I assume you mean my statement, but no, it cannot and never will be done. The very nature of how MRI and CT scans work will keep them from being hand held. For them to work, the body part being scanned needs to fit inside the device because the transmitter (whether magnetic or radiation) and the receiver need to be opposite each other (think of a traditional x-ray, the film has to be opposite the radiation source). CT would also need radiation shielding. Finally, both will need some heavy duty computer processing and some sort of high resolution screen to visualize the image on. Even with computers get smaller and smaller and screens getting higher and higher resolution, unless you are talking about a device that can only scan somebody's finger, it cannot and will never be hand held because the physics involved with how the device works precludes that. Will CT and MRI machines continue to get smaller than the room sized equipment of yesterday, yes. But they cannot become handsized, but they will always have to be larger than what they are trying to image. It's a matter of physics.
If you think that people who understand statistics are immunized against magical thinking I have a bridge to sell you.
A suitable knowledge of mathematics allows you to calculate correct answers to problems that intuition provides lousy answers to; but that doesn't make intution shut up, unfortunately.
If you dangle somebody from a crane, hundreds of feet above the ground and all those teeny little figures walking about, does that person's heart rate, blood pressure, adrenaline levels, and similar fear responses have any useful correlation to their knowledge of the tensile strength of the steel cable they are attached to?
Actually, intuition is pretty darn important, even in math, at least theoretical math. Stephen Hawkins relies on intuition. So did Einstein. So do numerous others. Intuition isn't always correct, but without it, analytical thought can't really develop.
Besides, even mat itself isn't as concrete as we want to make it. Math tells us that the square root of a number is a value that, when multiplied by itself, gives the number. No magic involved there. However, much of physics relies on imaginary numbers (the square root of negative one). Imaginary number or magical thinking, you tell me.
Catching the 'improbable' on film makes it easier to study and to reduce the improbability of the event occuring again.
Heisenberg, if he were alive today, might argue otherwise.
Not only is there the improbable out there, there are also outright slanders. Particularly against Israel and the US. All sorts of conspiracy junk that blames them for the world's ills and based on falsehoods that are trivially easy to disprove with facts. However, idiots lap it up. Just wait for the flames in reply to this post - and watch how people with froth at the mouth based on cherished falsehoods rather than quoting actual *facts*. It is incredible just how backward the world has become, that people will hate blindly without ever checking any facts whatsoever (accepting false *facts* from propagandists instead). Cue the rants ...
Facts or references, please.
Hogwash! It doesn't matter how many improbable things appear online. It won't actually change the probability of something that is improbable happening. If the likelihood of being thrown through the windshield and landing on your feet and running away is 1 in 1,000,000,000, then it is still the same probability regardless of how many people saw a clip of it on you-tube.
So, unless the original post is positing that somehow observing the improbable event by millions of people on you-tube is going to cause a quantum change (which would be an interesting discussion), the probability remains unchanged.
Does this hail the rebirth of religion? Or perhaps the renaissance of sci-fi in 5-10 years?
I would think it is just the opposite. Religion(s) formed prior to mass communication, the the relaying of the improbable to the masses causing a change in belief would not be in effect. Likewise, that would probably be evidence that the premise of the article is, well, improbable, too.
It seems the bio-bed would be the first step and much more practical. Once that was perfected, then a miniaturized (ie hand held) version would come along. Besides, at least for a bio-bed, you have to lie down on it. A tri-corder, somebody could scan you without your knowing (as evidence on several Star Trek episodes).
We have a newborn and I was a little frustrated how little data is obtained from a fetal ultrasound. Surely, with the right processing, a more accurate model could be constructed of a fetus/internal organs from these units? I don't think there's any way to fit an MRI or CT in the palm of your hand, but maybe a small ultrasound device?
If you had to have a c-section and they didn't have to stick a needle into your uterus to obtain amniotic fluid to determine if the baby's lungs were mature enough, you can thank your ultrasound. It's original purpose was to enable a trained practitioner to tell what was going on inside you (whether in the womb, or the heart, or where ever it was being used). It was never intended to provide the resolution of an MRI or CT scan, nor would those scans be beneficial in most pregnancies, unless there was the suspicion of something already being seriously wrong.
Fetal ultrasounds can be very detailed, of course, they are usually trans-vaginal then, instead of external and the patient has to be very still, just like for an MRI or CT scan (just not as long). As with an MRI or CT scan, it is really the image processing software that makes the image look so detailed. That software is usually not applied to an ultrasound, but has been for special images in the womb. But, when the purpose of the test is simply to determine how far along a pregnancy is, you usually aren't going to spend the extra thousands of dollars to produce those images.
As for small devices, because of how they work, it is unlikely that there will ever be small hand held MRI or CT scanners. There are smaller "open" MRIs instead of the big tube, but their images are much inferior to the full MRI machines. On the other hand, there already are small hand held ultrasounds. They can be used in the field to check for clots and obstructions very quickly. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't even an "app" for that.
Of course the trend is on touch screens on laptops. Windows 8 really requires it and if you want to be able to put that silly little Designed for Windows 8 sticker on your laptop, it has to be touchscreen. Laptops are coming out with touchscreens, not because of consumer demand, but because Microsoft is telling the manufactures to make them or else. It's Microsoft's edge over Apple's OS X.
The problem is that touchscreens on laptops and desktops have been around for quite awhile. What Microsoft doesn't realize is that this strategy can really blow up in their face if there isn't new software designed specifically to take advantage of a touch screen interface (which would be vastly different than current applicaitons) AND still be productive for real work. Consumers won't equate a useless touchscreen with Dell or HP or . They will equate it with Windows.
Look at the frustrations in the linux world with Gnome 3 and Unity interfaces, touch like interfaces may be fine for your tablet and for consuming information, but if you have real work to do, work that requires the creation of data, say in a business or research setting, touch screens are less than ideal. That might also be one of the reasons why corporate America seems to be skipping over Windows 8 and hoping the next version is better suited towards their needs.
Here's a novel idea, what kind of interface are Microsoft's programmers, business analysts and bookkeepers using for their day to day work? Do they use a keyboard or a touchscreen?
MIT's study is flawed. Entrepreneurs aren't better innovators than managers. Successful entrepreneurs may be better innovators, but not entrepreneurs taken as a whole. Since over half of all small businesses fail, if you include those numbers in the base, then entrepreneurs are not more successful.
To succeed, you have to first have an idea. Then you have to be able to capitalize on that idea. Unless you are already very successful, most entrepreneurs have to bring in outside capital which means they also give up some (to a lot) of control of their company, or at least their idea. At that point, they are in the same position as a manager, who has an idea, but not the control of that idea either, because the rest of the organizaiton takes over.
So, either compare successful entrepreneurs to successful managers or compare all entrepreneurs to all managers, but don't mix and match.
And as I said, just because it was let go by before does not mean it was okay, even before. It just means they didn't voice objection till now. I'm not drawing any conclusions as to the merit of this particular complaint, but the argument 'well they didn't complain before' is very weak.
Actually, the argument that they didn't complain before is very substantial when you are claiming that it is a violation of your religious or moral principals. If every thing is set back to the way it was and it is still a problem, then it would indicate that something else is either the problem or your religious or moral principals have changed.
Even if the assumption is made that the old way also violated their religious principals, but they chose not to object and now that it has been returned back to the old way and they choose to object, something by definition has had to change, either externally or internally. Until finding out what that is, one doesn't know what the real issue or problem is. Without knowing what the real issue or problem is, one cannot offer a real solution.
In short, it doesn't matter that it was okay before or not. It was not objectionable before as evidenced by the fact that the family did not object. Now it is objectionable. So, with implying nothing wrong with the change of position, it still leaves the question of what has caused the changed?
Worthless, in my opinion. When I was project manager for several large projects, some of them had timed coding tests some did not. All the timed coding tests showed is who could code quickly, but not how well they could work together as a team. A successful project, defined as being delivered on time and under budget comes from effective team work and that is the number one requirement. It has been my experience, and I have worked with probably tens of thousands programmers over the decades, that the speediest programmers, while very good at what they do, tend to be lone rangers instead of team players (that is not always the case, but is more often than not).
The other problem with timed coding is very often when hiring a programmer, they may be excellent in one language, which is great for this project, but not the next, or vice versa. Such tests only show a snapshot at a specific moment of time and again, then you have to figure out if they are too well versed in whatever language you are testing them for, how adaptable will they be on the next project? If they are a great C programmer and now need to be on a team involved with Java (after training, of course) will they still hold on to the way they did it in C or will they embrace new (for them) ways of doing things?
Basing your hiring decisions, or even just who will make the cut, cannot answer those types of questions and is useful as saying an individual must have a computer science degree while ignoring what other experience they may have. It does make the hiring process easy, because it is something quantifiable, but it hardly guarantees the best candidate will be chosen.
Here is a thought. The US is a capitalistic society. Why is the government funding this? If there is a resource shortage, isn't the private sector the solution? Or is it that the private sector is only the solution once all the hard stuff has been paid for by the taxpayer?
Schools probably banned metal lunchboxes as potential dangerous weapons.
If you carry an Altoids tin, they probably assume you're storing contraband drugs (like aspirin) in it.
They make those aluminum wallets and metal business card holders. As for Altoids, they can assume what they want. They would have to prove it is contraband drugs in it. As for lunchboxes, yes, those were banned because they were considered to be possible weapons. We should have seen that coming when they first banned the extended 30 lunch box clip.
To much of a potential weapon. Banned.
All kidding aside...that might not be a joke for some schools.
Yeah, I thought twice about posting my comment giving the recent shooting. But my thoughts were more about the knee jerk reaction to the shooting and that it only takes two seconds to swap out a standard 10 shot clip, so the 30 shot clip is not significantly more deadly than multiple 10 shot clips. Likewise, with the lunchboxes, which were banned, because they can be used as a weapon to hit somebody upside the head - well, I'd rather be hit upside the head with an 8 ounce lunch box than a 4 pound laptop, but nobody is clambering to band laptops at schools. I figure if somebody wants to do harm to another human being, they are going to find a way to do it.
But I do agree that school violence is a serious issue. I just think, though, that it is a symptom of a bigger underlying problem and until society addresses the real problem, a lot of resources will be expended solving the wrong thing.
The same could be said about the RFID issue. If the purpose is to ensure the students are their for state funding, the first question to ask is "Why does the state require that?" Why not fund based on registered students? Seems to be a lot simpler and you could do random spot checks in a district to verify accuracy. Besides, if 10% of the kids are missing (2 kids from each class) on any given day, you can't cut staff, you need the same number of teachers, which is your primary cost.
No, just like gun control won't actually keep our kids from being harmed by somebody intent on harming them (for the record, I am pro gun control), electronically tagging them won't make them attend class, either. To solve a problem, you first need to ask the right question.