Of course the US is losing R&D ground to Asia. R&D takes money, but in the US huge salaries are paid out to executives and the rest tends to go out as dividends. R&D implies a company's management and owners have the ability to defer gratification. Something that is sorely lacking nowadays.
Maybe the real reason for the badges and leaderboards is so inept managers who know more about marketing than programming have some way to evaluate what the programmers are doing.
They don't give a time frame so how can you claim they proposed one.
""" Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years (9, 33), we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions. """
Doesn't say it did occur in a short time frame, just that apparently it can. And "remarkably quickly" when you are talking about millions of years doesn't mean "short time frame". All they seem to be saying is that there doesn't need to be a big increase in genome complexity to get the shift and hence it doesn't need lots of time if you happen to have selective pressure for it.
It is the last part of their statement (that you quote): "...can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions" that is the problem. It is misleading. There is no doubt it is true, but the "appropriate selective conditions" they used could never occur in nature, without the before mentioned deity or alien to do the selection process (as the researchers did).
Don't misunderstand me, I am not arguing for the existence of a deity or alien, just that the techniques used cannot occur naturally, so the time frame referenced is meaningless. I have no doubt, however, that the process from single cell to multicell was much quicker than the process from the primordial goop to single cell was.
They aren't claiming the multicellular life evolved in 2 months way back when. In fact you've have to be a drooling moron to think they would.
We could also study the effects of compund X on mice, by observing mice in nature for a few hundred years and seeing what happens to the ones that just happen to eat some of compound X. Or we could put some mice in cadges and feed them compound X and speed up the process a tad.
The whole idea of "natural selection" is that something is doing the "selecting". It could be a prey-predator arms race, it could the environment (average temperatures dropped, etc), and so on.
So rather than observing yeast for a hundreds of years and hoping that some random occurance would see something that favours "clumps" of cells over individual cells they speed up the process.
If the article is about the fact that yeast or other single celled organisms could clump together to form a multicell organism, what you say would be true. However, by adding the qualification that the process can occur in a relatively short time does bring into question "How?" For the researchers, they answered it by specifically selecting those organisms that had the best characteristics to clump. That is fine, too. But exactly how that equates to them clumping in nature in a relatively short time is a leap. There are far more random occurrences that could happen that would discourage clumping than encourage it.
So, I still stand by my original point, that given the parameters setup by the researchers, such a conclusion requires an outside force of some sort. I do not dispute that it can occur naturally, just in a short time frame as proposed. (Not only do I not doubt it, but it is obvious that it did indeed occur).
From the article, they had to intervene and select the yeast cells that were cooperating with what they were trying to do. Unless they are proposing outside intervention by a deity or alien race, it seems that the process they used isn't representative of what would have occurred in nature.
The origin of multicellular life, one of the most important developments in Earth's history, could have occurred with surprising speed, U.S. researchers have shown.
The origin of multicellular life comes from unicellular life, which would be one of the most important developments in Earth's history. When they can create that in the lab, then let's talk.
I think I'm going to file a new patent for the process where a company derives revenue from suing competitors over frivolous claims instead of producing a product.
I noticed his predictions were pretty ridiculous. Probably the most obvious one was his 10/10 for fusion in a hundred years. Given the rate of progress, or lack thereof, I don't see it as being certain. Given that it hasn't yet been established as possible, and that it's been 50 years away for at least 50 years, I think it's rather optimistic to consider it a certainty.
I personally believe that we'll eventually get fusion worked out, but right now I don't see any way in which it can be considered certain. Especially with the backlash against fission lately.
You can buy a Ford Fusion today. Why wait 100 years?
Lack of documentation of code is a management problem. Management tends to have unrealistic timelines for development, without enough slack time built in. Documenting code takes a back seat when deadlines are looming. If adequately documenting code takes 10%-20% of the time to actually code, then timelines need to be extended accordingly. That is usually unacceptable in today's environment where corporate management takes the approach of get it out the door now, we'll fix it later.
An analog TV, whether flat panel or crt, with a converter box is not the same as a flat panel tv. They are different in terms of aspect ratio, resolution and any number of "features." Specifically, you only need the converter box if you want over the air broadcasts. If you have cable or satellite, you don't even need the box, because the cable and satellite boxes can do the conversion for you.
The difference between analog with a converter box and flat panel when watching digital media is similar to the difference between vhs and dvd. Both can play similar content, but the experience is not the same. You can watch a wide format movie or sporting event that the converter box will convert back to your analog set, but it will either clip the ends to make it fit full screen or you will have big black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, effectively turning your 25 inch RCA tv into a 18 inch display. Even with that, the resolution on the analog screen will be about half of the flat panel.
So yes, you can use an analog tv with a converter box to receive digital streams, but it is anything but the same as having a tv that is actually designed to output in the format the stream is expecting to be outputted in.
That is not necessarily true. Too much energy and the molecules that need to exist, whether carbon based or some other base can't form. Take our own Sun. Plenty of energy there, but if you want self replicating molecules, they can't form long enough to replicate.
There is a reason we are all sitting on planet earth and not mercury.
That adoption of digital TV and flat panel technology occured at roughly the same time is just coincidence.
Market analysts attribute the adoption to people purchasing new TVs to obtain the digital advantage. Prior to that, you got your digital TV through the cable company or satellite. The reason the two technologies occurred at the same time was because people stop buying analog TVs and flat panels were cheaper than developing crt tubes in a wide format. It was precisely the move to digital and wide screens that came from the switchover to digital tv in the US that led to the surge in flat panel tvs. Prior to that, they were available, just not widely adopted.
While I think smart tvs will be successful, it won't be an overnight success, like the switch to flat panels but more along the lines of the switch from dvd to blueray. If people feel their current dumb tv is good enough, they will stick with it before spending the money.
It was the US government that required the switch to digital TV. It was not for the consumer benefit, but was a bill originally passed to help the US television set producers compete with the likes of Sony, etc. The idea being that having a new standard not based on either the Japanese or European standard would allow the US manufactures to become competitive again. Ironically, by the time it was all said and done and went through all of the delays, there were no more US manufactures of TVs. The last one was a Zenith plant in Springfield, Missouri.
The $15 converter box was another government imposition to help the manufactures and networks. One of the concerns at the time was that the new TVs were expensive. If people didn't switch over, nobody would make the tuners for the new set. If people didn't switch over, companies would quit advertising and the networks would suffer. The converter box, touted as a means for the public to make the switch inexpensively, was actually a government subsidy to the manufactures to spur production of the new tuners and to the media companies to ensure they had a product to sell/watch (although the media companies didn't get direct payment like the manufactures did). So, while the individual paid $15 for the converter box, the government kicked in, on average, $45 paid directly to the manufacturer (to the tune of $1.5B).
Don't say, XBOX 360 or PS3, or even the Wii already offer most of this: "modern browsing features, control through voice or motion, application support, and even upgradeability".
I just don't see the sense of building these features into a TV.
May be so you won't have to have a video console hooked up to every tv that you want to browse from?
The TV makers are hoping that the multitude of additional features will be enough to trigger turnover like the industry saw after the introduction of flat-panel screens, Bloomberg noted.
The difference is that everyone had to buy a new tv at the time the flat panels were coming out because the old broadcast technology was going away. The market didn't make the broadcast change, it was mandated by the US government. So, unless someone or something outside the market dictates that everyone must have a smart tv, it is unlikely to trigger a turnover like the industry saw with the introduction of flat-panel screens.
Of course it's not their fault. Why take the responsibility when you can blame some unnamed country with radar installations in Alaska! At least when we crashed a several planetary exploration satellites, NASA admitted they goofed and used kilometers instead of feet (or something like that). Rockets and satellites are fairly common, but it still is rocket science and malfunctions do occur. Too bad the US stopped the shuttle program, for a fee they could have retrieved it for the Russians.
Hmmmm, the sun is the star that the earth revolves around. Our sun would just appear as a star in their sky. I would therefore imagine that the sunset on a distant planet would look much like the setting of any star in our sky, not too spectacular.
Their "battle cry" against Evolution is "Irreducible Complexity" meaning some biological systems are so complex that if a single part is removed the system fails.
It's the equivalent of saying "if i remove the cam shaft from a vehicle it can't function, therefore GOD must have created vehicles" (Crap car analogy but can't be arsed thinking like a "new earth Creationist")
No, it is not. But then again, somebody or something did create vehicles.
This is just an example why you can't really 'argue' with a creationist. Anything you come up with, they can make a magic-fairy-dust argument that it's because God wanted it that way.
It isn't science.
And more importantly, it isn't rational.
But its just an arbitrary bar. Once you've stepped off the rational, any opinion is suspect. It doesn't matter if you pray to "god" when you're having a shitty day, believe in "intelligent design" or live in a compound having incestuous relations with 9 year old girls... its all a matter of degree. The path of rationality is very narrow, and once you step off it, and aren't willing to step back onto it, the rest is just haggling over price, as they say.
Of course the square root of -1 isn't rational either, but we couldn't do a lot of physics without it.
Be careful with interpretation. The study is about detecting cognitive decline to help predict dementia. In the actual study summary (available through the links in the slashdot summary), the researchers reference other studies that show cognitive decline does not begin until 60 (Seattle study) and 55 (I forget which study). They, the researchers do not dispute this and talk about the need for additional research to determine better techniques to evaluate the decline.
It is not news that cognitive decline occurs with advancing years. The research is about trying to detect the decline that leads to dementia at an earlier time so that treatments can be applied when they will have the most impact. The researchers state that dementia appears to be a process that progresses over 20 to 30 years, so if it manifests itself in the 60s, they are trying to see what evidence there is in the 40s.
From my own personal observations, since I am now beyond the age 45 when they state decline begins. I would agree with that. There are somethings that I am not nearly at good at as I was ten years ago (remembering names of new people I meet or long lists of items). On the other hand, I've done some of my most productive research in the last few years.
My own theory is that for many of the cognitive declines that the study found to be normal, we tend to compensate for (smart phones help tremendously with long lists. Before that PDAs or even daytimers). I also think, though, that with age, comes experience and very often experience provides insight that raw cognitive power might not see. So it is a trade off. There is a reason why we have a stereotype of the wisest people being older people.
Put differently, if you needed heart surgery, would you want the cardiac surgeon just finished with their residency and at their cognitive prime or the 50 yr old surgeon, who has experience a slight decline in cognitive ability, but has performed the particular procedure 500 times?
This actually makes sense. Prior to the iPhone, there were no widely accepted smart phones for consumers. It seems like Ubuntu is trying to do for TV what Apple did for cell phones. If you wanted to penetrate the consumer market, which Ubuntu does, then the TV seems a better avenue than the already crowded cellphone and tablet market.
If successful with a smart TV, then people will be more willing to look at an Ubuntu powered tablet or phone.
This has been the history of Mandriva, originally Mandrake. And, it isn't because of being a desktop distro, but because management decisions at critical points of its life (or would that be mis-management decisions). Anyway, it does appear that this time, the large beast is in its final death throws.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the US is losing R&D ground to Asia. R&D takes money, but in the US huge salaries are paid out to executives and the rest tends to go out as dividends. R&D implies a company's management and owners have the ability to defer gratification. Something that is sorely lacking nowadays.
Maybe the real reason for the badges and leaderboards is so inept managers who know more about marketing than programming have some way to evaluate what the programmers are doing.
They don't give a time frame so how can you claim they proposed one.
"""
Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years (9, 33), we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions.
"""
Doesn't say it did occur in a short time frame, just that apparently it can. And "remarkably quickly" when you are talking about millions of years doesn't mean "short time frame". All they seem to be saying is that there doesn't need to be a big increase in genome complexity to get the shift and hence it doesn't need lots of time if you happen to have selective pressure for it.
It is the last part of their statement (that you quote): "...can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions" that is the problem. It is misleading. There is no doubt it is true, but the "appropriate selective conditions" they used could never occur in nature, without the before mentioned deity or alien to do the selection process (as the researchers did).
Don't misunderstand me, I am not arguing for the existence of a deity or alien, just that the techniques used cannot occur naturally, so the time frame referenced is meaningless. I have no doubt, however, that the process from single cell to multicell was much quicker than the process from the primordial goop to single cell was.
No shit, sherlock.
They aren't claiming the multicellular life evolved in 2 months way back when. In fact you've have to be a drooling moron to think they would.
We could also study the effects of compund X on mice, by observing mice in nature for a few hundred years and seeing what happens to the ones that just happen to eat some of compound X. Or we could put some mice in cadges and feed them compound X and speed up the process a tad.
The whole idea of "natural selection" is that something is doing the "selecting". It could be a prey-predator arms race, it could the environment (average temperatures dropped, etc), and so on.
So rather than observing yeast for a hundreds of years and hoping that some random occurance would see something that favours "clumps" of cells over individual cells they speed up the process.
If the article is about the fact that yeast or other single celled organisms could clump together to form a multicell organism, what you say would be true. However, by adding the qualification that the process can occur in a relatively short time does bring into question "How?" For the researchers, they answered it by specifically selecting those organisms that had the best characteristics to clump. That is fine, too. But exactly how that equates to them clumping in nature in a relatively short time is a leap. There are far more random occurrences that could happen that would discourage clumping than encourage it.
So, I still stand by my original point, that given the parameters setup by the researchers, such a conclusion requires an outside force of some sort. I do not dispute that it can occur naturally, just in a short time frame as proposed. (Not only do I not doubt it, but it is obvious that it did indeed occur).
Prior art doesn't count. It is now first to file.
From the article, they had to intervene and select the yeast cells that were cooperating with what they were trying to do. Unless they are proposing outside intervention by a deity or alien race, it seems that the process they used isn't representative of what would have occurred in nature.
The origin of multicellular life, one of the most important developments in Earth's history, could have occurred with surprising speed, U.S. researchers have shown.
The origin of multicellular life comes from unicellular life, which would be one of the most important developments in Earth's history. When they can create that in the lab, then let's talk.
I think I'm going to file a new patent for the process where a company derives revenue from suing competitors over frivolous claims instead of producing a product.
I noticed his predictions were pretty ridiculous. Probably the most obvious one was his 10/10 for fusion in a hundred years. Given the rate of progress, or lack thereof, I don't see it as being certain. Given that it hasn't yet been established as possible, and that it's been 50 years away for at least 50 years, I think it's rather optimistic to consider it a certainty.
I personally believe that we'll eventually get fusion worked out, but right now I don't see any way in which it can be considered certain. Especially with the backlash against fission lately.
You can buy a Ford Fusion today. Why wait 100 years?
Lack of documentation of code is a management problem. Management tends to have unrealistic timelines for development, without enough slack time built in. Documenting code takes a back seat when deadlines are looming. If adequately documenting code takes 10%-20% of the time to actually code, then timelines need to be extended accordingly. That is usually unacceptable in today's environment where corporate management takes the approach of get it out the door now, we'll fix it later.
An analog TV, whether flat panel or crt, with a converter box is not the same as a flat panel tv. They are different in terms of aspect ratio, resolution and any number of "features." Specifically, you only need the converter box if you want over the air broadcasts. If you have cable or satellite, you don't even need the box, because the cable and satellite boxes can do the conversion for you.
The difference between analog with a converter box and flat panel when watching digital media is similar to the difference between vhs and dvd. Both can play similar content, but the experience is not the same. You can watch a wide format movie or sporting event that the converter box will convert back to your analog set, but it will either clip the ends to make it fit full screen or you will have big black bars at the top and bottom of the screen, effectively turning your 25 inch RCA tv into a 18 inch display. Even with that, the resolution on the analog screen will be about half of the flat panel.
So yes, you can use an analog tv with a converter box to receive digital streams, but it is anything but the same as having a tv that is actually designed to output in the format the stream is expecting to be outputted in.
That is not necessarily true. Too much energy and the molecules that need to exist, whether carbon based or some other base can't form. Take our own Sun. Plenty of energy there, but if you want self replicating molecules, they can't form long enough to replicate.
There is a reason we are all sitting on planet earth and not mercury.
That adoption of digital TV and flat panel technology occured at roughly the same time is just coincidence.
Market analysts attribute the adoption to people purchasing new TVs to obtain the digital advantage. Prior to that, you got your digital TV through the cable company or satellite. The reason the two technologies occurred at the same time was because people stop buying analog TVs and flat panels were cheaper than developing crt tubes in a wide format. It was precisely the move to digital and wide screens that came from the switchover to digital tv in the US that led to the surge in flat panel tvs. Prior to that, they were available, just not widely adopted.
While I think smart tvs will be successful, it won't be an overnight success, like the switch to flat panels but more along the lines of the switch from dvd to blueray. If people feel their current dumb tv is good enough, they will stick with it before spending the money.
It was the US government that required the switch to digital TV. It was not for the consumer benefit, but was a bill originally passed to help the US television set producers compete with the likes of Sony, etc. The idea being that having a new standard not based on either the Japanese or European standard would allow the US manufactures to become competitive again. Ironically, by the time it was all said and done and went through all of the delays, there were no more US manufactures of TVs. The last one was a Zenith plant in Springfield, Missouri.
The $15 converter box was another government imposition to help the manufactures and networks. One of the concerns at the time was that the new TVs were expensive. If people didn't switch over, nobody would make the tuners for the new set. If people didn't switch over, companies would quit advertising and the networks would suffer. The converter box, touted as a means for the public to make the switch inexpensively, was actually a government subsidy to the manufactures to spur production of the new tuners and to the media companies to ensure they had a product to sell/watch (although the media companies didn't get direct payment like the manufactures did). So, while the individual paid $15 for the converter box, the government kicked in, on average, $45 paid directly to the manufacturer (to the tune of $1.5B).
Don't say, XBOX 360 or PS3, or even the Wii already offer most of this: "modern browsing features, control through voice or motion, application support, and even upgradeability".
I just don't see the sense of building these features into a TV.
May be so you won't have to have a video console hooked up to every tv that you want to browse from?
The TV makers are hoping that the multitude of additional features will be enough to trigger turnover like the industry saw after the introduction of flat-panel screens, Bloomberg noted.
The difference is that everyone had to buy a new tv at the time the flat panels were coming out because the old broadcast technology was going away. The market didn't make the broadcast change, it was mandated by the US government. So, unless someone or something outside the market dictates that everyone must have a smart tv, it is unlikely to trigger a turnover like the industry saw with the introduction of flat-panel screens.
Of course it's not their fault. Why take the responsibility when you can blame some unnamed country with radar installations in Alaska! At least when we crashed a several planetary exploration satellites, NASA admitted they goofed and used kilometers instead of feet (or something like that). Rockets and satellites are fairly common, but it still is rocket science and malfunctions do occur. Too bad the US stopped the shuttle program, for a fee they could have retrieved it for the Russians.
Why title this with a "dirty" rag. It seems a clean rag in the fuel line would have disabled the satellite just as effectively.
Hmmmm, the sun is the star that the earth revolves around. Our sun would just appear as a star in their sky. I would therefore imagine that the sunset on a distant planet would look much like the setting of any star in our sky, not too spectacular.
Their "battle cry" against Evolution is "Irreducible Complexity" meaning some biological systems are so complex that if a single part is removed the system fails.
It's the equivalent of saying "if i remove the cam shaft from a vehicle it can't function, therefore GOD must have created vehicles"
(Crap car analogy but can't be arsed thinking like a "new earth Creationist")
No, it is not. But then again, somebody or something did create vehicles.
This is just an example why you can't really 'argue' with a creationist. Anything you come up with, they can make a magic-fairy-dust argument that it's because God wanted it that way.
It isn't science.
And more importantly, it isn't rational.
But its just an arbitrary bar. Once you've stepped off the rational, any opinion is suspect. It doesn't matter if you pray to "god" when you're having a shitty day, believe in "intelligent design" or live in a compound having incestuous relations with 9 year old girls ... its all a matter of degree. The path of rationality is very narrow, and once you step off it, and aren't willing to step back onto it, the rest is just haggling over price, as they say.
Of course the square root of -1 isn't rational either, but we couldn't do a lot of physics without it.
Be careful with interpretation. The study is about detecting cognitive decline to help predict dementia. In the actual study summary (available through the links in the slashdot summary), the researchers reference other studies that show cognitive decline does not begin until 60 (Seattle study) and 55 (I forget which study). They, the researchers do not dispute this and talk about the need for additional research to determine better techniques to evaluate the decline.
It is not news that cognitive decline occurs with advancing years. The research is about trying to detect the decline that leads to dementia at an earlier time so that treatments can be applied when they will have the most impact. The researchers state that dementia appears to be a process that progresses over 20 to 30 years, so if it manifests itself in the 60s, they are trying to see what evidence there is in the 40s.
From my own personal observations, since I am now beyond the age 45 when they state decline begins. I would agree with that. There are somethings that I am not nearly at good at as I was ten years ago (remembering names of new people I meet or long lists of items). On the other hand, I've done some of my most productive research in the last few years.
My own theory is that for many of the cognitive declines that the study found to be normal, we tend to compensate for (smart phones help tremendously with long lists. Before that PDAs or even daytimers). I also think, though, that with age, comes experience and very often experience provides insight that raw cognitive power might not see. So it is a trade off. There is a reason why we have a stereotype of the wisest people being older people.
Put differently, if you needed heart surgery, would you want the cardiac surgeon just finished with their residency and at their cognitive prime or the 50 yr old surgeon, who has experience a slight decline in cognitive ability, but has performed the particular procedure 500 times?
This actually makes sense. Prior to the iPhone, there were no widely accepted smart phones for consumers. It seems like Ubuntu is trying to do for TV what Apple did for cell phones. If you wanted to penetrate the consumer market, which Ubuntu does, then the TV seems a better avenue than the already crowded cellphone and tablet market.
If successful with a smart TV, then people will be more willing to look at an Ubuntu powered tablet or phone.
This has been the history of Mandriva, originally Mandrake. And, it isn't because of being a desktop distro, but because management decisions at critical points of its life (or would that be mis-management decisions). Anyway, it does appear that this time, the large beast is in its final death throws.
Maybe those back scatter x-ray devices aren't as safe as the TSA says they are.