A long time ago, near the end of my course on engineering calculus, a neighbours kid asked me for help with their 10th grade math (can't remember exactly what the question was). I just remember that I couldn't figure it out for a long time. Then I realize that the problem was I was looking for something way more complicated than what was there. Kind of like trying to figure out the area under a curve for the question 1+1=?. Similarly (see what I did there?), these math PhDs are often too egg headed for their lesser egg head students.
The colleges and universities won't let helicopter parents write their exams for their precious little wuggums. Too bad so sad, should have thought about that when self esteem trumped your kids ability to actually think and do for themselves. But if you disagree, continue putting your kids in your minivan and driving them one block to school every day.
So now it's time for your precious wuggums to take a fine arts degree. Or if they are even less intelligent or more incapable of doing thing for themselves without expecting praise every two minutes, a business or the old stand-bye, psychology degree (at least fine arts students understand that they will need to face some disappointment in life).
Mind you it doesn't speak to others' intelligence when they let people with business degrees actually run things. According to Jennings (Pg 13), the highest performing CEOs usually have engineering degrees. (Hit the Ground Running; Jennings, Jason; Penguin Group; 2009).
When people get older they don't just have issues with motor control (stiff fingers, shaky hands, etc.), they also have problems with the feeling in their digits. So not only is it harder to hold and manipulate things because your fingers don't want to move in as controllable a manner as when you are younger, it is harder to feel them. Now at what age that happens is variable, for example I watched Henry Townsend playing guitar and piano, and he was in his mid 90s, and he played almost to the day of his death. But not everyone is so lucky and unfortunately the OP says his grandma is losing much of her physical faculties (my sympathies after witnessing my mother finally losing to age recently). So anything requiring holding a stylus or pushing the smaller buttons on these devices is a bad choice. Even using a mouse is likely problematic, so a stylus which requires even more motor skills is probably just wrong.
A bigger screen and being able to push things around with your finger is better. Even if they can't feel the tips of their fingers so well, if their vision is still good, older people can still see if they are able to move things around the screen. And it might be enough mental and motor skill exercise to help her keep more motor skill and mental skill ability and possibly improve a bit. Use it or lose it. My mom ended up with macular degeneration of a type that isn't so treatable with the new injections that are available. It's doubly tough when not only your motor skills start to go, but you can't see much either. So being able to see is a bonus for his grandma.
Good luck with the project. But why not an iPad or other tablet? What is the issue with internet? Just don't allow the WiFi connection if you don't want it.
One other suggestion: maybe find some sort of mount if she is in a bed that can be pushed around in front of her like a monitor desk arm so she won't drop it, and can move it out of the way if she wants.
"Babies, athletes, first responders, the elderly — a growing list of people could benefit from connected clothing, says AT&T,
"Babies, athletes, first responders, the elderly — a growing list of people could benefit from connected clothing, says AT none more so than AT&T corporate executives and their obese bonus cheques, and their personal investment bankers.
Besides which, there will also be pretentious people who will tell you that they enjoyed the 'music' just so they can either be contrary or act like they know something you don't putting themselves in some separate 'club'. Or some pretentious cunt who will insult those pretentious assholes because he thinks he is better than them because they are pretentious. A slice of pretentious pie, all around, and around, and around, and...
Do you mean like how Hitler wanted the first jet fighter redesigned as a jet bomber, which it wasn't suited for, thus delaying the eventual production of the jet fighter till the end of the war, when they finally gave in to the inevitable? I'm glad the dictator listened so well to the innovators that they never were able to keep the air superiority that jet fighters would have given them. One of the things that helped us avoid having jackboots in our shoe stores today.
A new analysis of mammography concluded that while mammograms find cancer in 138,000 women each year, as many as 120,000 to 134,000 of those women either have cancers that are already lethal or have cancers that grow so slowly they do not need to be treated.
So what you're saying is that it is not worth being able to save the lives of between 4,000 and 18,0000 breast cancer patients each year? I wonder what those 4,000 to 18,000 breast cancer patients might want to tell you. I'll hazard a guess: fuck you asshole!
As might have been mentioned, it isn't really the detection that is at issue here, if the article is of anything to go by. It is the choice of treatment. Maybe what the real issue is that we need to be better able to determine the type/subtype/stage of the cancer so that realistic treatment can be made. For example if a PSA test determines that someone likely has prostate cancer, then it would be better then to determine what kind before treating. So to say that testing for cancer is bad is well, retarded. No better way to put it. Testing for cancer is the only way to find out if you have it. Like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play. You can't possibly cure cancer if you don't know you have it. So let's get to the real heart of the issue.
Who is this group that says we shouldn't test? Do they have any affiliation with for profit medical insurance companies or any other group that stands to profit by reducing the amount of money spent on testing? Is this a possible reason for trying to stop testing? Or is is it shear academic mental masturbation? Is it just easier than finding ways to definitively identify the exact nature of the cancer so that tailored (appropriate) treatments can be made (i.e. they may not want to pay to fund cancer research for better targeted treatment... maybe these companies see diminishing returns in this). You might include no treatment at all if the cancer really is untreatable; but my feeling is no-one should ever have the right to tell someone they aren't allowed a shot at fighting for their life, no matter how slim the chances.
The Chinese will only ever be innovative when they have a government that doesn't persecute free thinkers. Free thinkers tend to find fault with systems that are restrictive in nature. The Chinese Communist Party has to be one of the most restrictive governments around that brooks no descent, nor criticism. As we have seen historically and currently that China continues to throw artists and other free thinkers in prison or worse. To innovate means to think outside the box means to be a free thinker. Get my drift? Once the communists fall or somehow find a way to allow people to say or think anything they want, then your assertions about the China of the future where they will innovate and no longer have to copy or reverse engineer products in order to compete. Until that time, you are just staring down a pipe dream.
Note that this doesn't mean they won't still fuck up the western economy. But that is more a function of western companies and their bonus chasing executives not giving a rat's ass about where they get their money and offshoring the manufacture of technology invented in the west; and turning a blind eye to China copying it for their own use since they will have got their bonuses by then.
Try harder. 5, 6, and 7 (at least) will all work using Wine.
Trying to get a Windows app to jump through a ragged hoop is not a very good example. If you can leave Wine out of your equation, then your point might have meaning.
But all that is, is assigning properties to the card object. And performing operations based on properties an object has is something that is quite common. So I still say this is nothing novel. Why is it patentable?
Really, isn't this just an obvious extension? What is patentable about age related permissions or permissions in general. I don't see anything all that novel in this. Ridiculous.
Even if the terrorists had money and lost the case, it isn't likely they would pay up in a manner timely enough to satisfy those doing the suing. On the other hand, the legal entities like airlines and security services have to pay if they want to stay in business (assuming they lose the case). I think those that are reasonable still also blame the terrorists. The unreasonable or those who are cynical or looking for someone to blame will also put a lot of blame on the other parties. Those who are reasonable usually only blame those other than the terrorists when there really is negligence in security. But in general, I do agree that too much emphasis is placed on ridiculous and often flawed by political correctness security measure and less on intelligence activity and communication. On 9/11 we know the intelligence community figured out the bad guys needed to be at least stopped and questioned. Poor communication and siloing between agencies was a major cause of not stopping it. And not a lack of groping TSA agents and body scanners.
NO. It does not protect you if the defamation/libel is in the link. From the Toronto Sun article on the matter:
“The Internet, in short, cannot provide access to information without hyperlinks,” wrote Justice Rosalie Abella. “Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and as a result, freedom of expression.”
While the decision was unanimous, two justices warned that framing or endorsing the link as the truth or accurate could still land an Internet linker in court.
“Combined text and hyperlink may amount to publication of defamatory material,” wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Morris Fish. “If the text communicates agreement with the content linked to, then the hyperlinker should be liable for the defamatory content.”
If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings. Get off my lawn. A lot more difficult than we might imagine right now. And maybe we don't have all the technology required right now (but maybe do), but we have to start somewhere. Because if we don't start we won't go anywhere. It is easier to say why we can't than to try. On the other hand, this guy is very right about the point that we can't just give up on fixing the things we have already fucked up on earth just because we can leave eventually. For one, some might want to stay, and in any event it is good to have the choice. If humans are still on the planet 500 years from now (we haven't nuked ourselves etc.), and we haven't reduced ourselves to stone age heathens, I'd be surprised if we haven't colonized at least the moon. I hate it when people assume based on current technology that we will never be able to do something in the future. Too many people saying what we can't do. Now get off my lawn.
"The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion in the phone-hacking scandal at The News of the World,"
FTFY: "The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion as The Fox News Network,"
Check out the decisions of people before and after they go on an SSRI. The small sample of SSRI users I know tend to fall into a complacent, ultimately self destructive, state when they are on the pills for too long (6 months or more). It's not something I've seen widely published in the literature, just personal observation shared between myself and other non-SSRI users about SSRI users we know.
I believe this might also be the case with non-SSRI anti-depressants like Wellbutrin (which is really more like a serotonin production booster than something that keeps it from being removed from the system). I think this is a very good point and I'm glad you mentioned it.
I wonder how much of our great art would never have been created if these concentrated anti-depressants were invented centuries ago.
Slashdot Mirror
A long time ago, near the end of my course on engineering calculus, a neighbours kid asked me for help with their 10th grade math (can't remember exactly what the question was). I just remember that I couldn't figure it out for a long time. Then I realize that the problem was I was looking for something way more complicated than what was there. Kind of like trying to figure out the area under a curve for the question 1+1=?. Similarly (see what I did there?), these math PhDs are often too egg headed for their lesser egg head students.
The colleges and universities won't let helicopter parents write their exams for their precious little wuggums. Too bad so sad, should have thought about that when self esteem trumped your kids ability to actually think and do for themselves. But if you disagree, continue putting your kids in your minivan and driving them one block to school every day.
So now it's time for your precious wuggums to take a fine arts degree. Or if they are even less intelligent or more incapable of doing thing for themselves without expecting praise every two minutes, a business or the old stand-bye, psychology degree (at least fine arts students understand that they will need to face some disappointment in life).
Mind you it doesn't speak to others' intelligence when they let people with business degrees actually run things. According to Jennings (Pg 13), the highest performing CEOs usually have engineering degrees. (Hit the Ground Running; Jennings, Jason; Penguin Group; 2009).
When people get older they don't just have issues with motor control (stiff fingers, shaky hands, etc.), they also have problems with the feeling in their digits. So not only is it harder to hold and manipulate things because your fingers don't want to move in as controllable a manner as when you are younger, it is harder to feel them. Now at what age that happens is variable, for example I watched Henry Townsend playing guitar and piano, and he was in his mid 90s, and he played almost to the day of his death. But not everyone is so lucky and unfortunately the OP says his grandma is losing much of her physical faculties (my sympathies after witnessing my mother finally losing to age recently). So anything requiring holding a stylus or pushing the smaller buttons on these devices is a bad choice. Even using a mouse is likely problematic, so a stylus which requires even more motor skills is probably just wrong.
A bigger screen and being able to push things around with your finger is better. Even if they can't feel the tips of their fingers so well, if their vision is still good, older people can still see if they are able to move things around the screen. And it might be enough mental and motor skill exercise to help her keep more motor skill and mental skill ability and possibly improve a bit. Use it or lose it. My mom ended up with macular degeneration of a type that isn't so treatable with the new injections that are available. It's doubly tough when not only your motor skills start to go, but you can't see much either. So being able to see is a bonus for his grandma.
Good luck with the project. But why not an iPad or other tablet? What is the issue with internet? Just don't allow the WiFi connection if you don't want it.
One other suggestion: maybe find some sort of mount if she is in a bed that can be pushed around in front of her like a monitor desk arm so she won't drop it, and can move it out of the way if she wants.
As long as it won't automatically tweet your status
YOU could be Anthony Weiner's press secretary. Honestly, it wasn't his fault, some script kiddy got into his pants.
"Babies, athletes, first responders, the elderly — a growing list of people could benefit from connected clothing, says AT none more so than AT&T corporate executives and their obese bonus cheques, and their personal investment bankers.
Besides which, there will also be pretentious people who will tell you that they enjoyed the 'music' just so they can either be contrary or act like they know something you don't putting themselves in some separate 'club'. Or some pretentious cunt who will insult those pretentious assholes because he thinks he is better than them because they are pretentious. A slice of pretentious pie, all around, and around, and around, and...
??? == Declare yourself King
You are mistaking espionage for innovation.
oops
Do you mean like how Hitler wanted the first jet fighter redesigned as a jet bomber, which it wasn't suited for, thus delaying the eventual production of the jet fighter till the end of the war, when they finally gave in to the inevitable? I'm glad the dictator listened so well to the innovators that they never were able to keep the air superiority that jet fighters would have given them. One of the things that helped us avoid having jackboots in our shoe stores today.
So what you're saying is that it is not worth being able to save the lives of between 4,000 and 18,0000 breast cancer patients each year? I wonder what those 4,000 to 18,000 breast cancer patients might want to tell you. I'll hazard a guess: fuck you asshole!
As might have been mentioned, it isn't really the detection that is at issue here, if the article is of anything to go by. It is the choice of treatment. Maybe what the real issue is that we need to be better able to determine the type/subtype/stage of the cancer so that realistic treatment can be made. For example if a PSA test determines that someone likely has prostate cancer, then it would be better then to determine what kind before treating. So to say that testing for cancer is bad is well, retarded. No better way to put it. Testing for cancer is the only way to find out if you have it. Like the lottery, you can't win if you don't play. You can't possibly cure cancer if you don't know you have it. So let's get to the real heart of the issue.
Who is this group that says we shouldn't test? Do they have any affiliation with for profit medical insurance companies or any other group that stands to profit by reducing the amount of money spent on testing? Is this a possible reason for trying to stop testing? Or is is it shear academic mental masturbation? Is it just easier than finding ways to definitively identify the exact nature of the cancer so that tailored (appropriate) treatments can be made (i.e. they may not want to pay to fund cancer research for better targeted treatment... maybe these companies see diminishing returns in this). You might include no treatment at all if the cancer really is untreatable; but my feeling is no-one should ever have the right to tell someone they aren't allowed a shot at fighting for their life, no matter how slim the chances.
The Chinese will only ever be innovative when they have a government that doesn't persecute free thinkers. Free thinkers tend to find fault with systems that are restrictive in nature. The Chinese Communist Party has to be one of the most restrictive governments around that brooks no descent, nor criticism. As we have seen historically and currently that China continues to throw artists and other free thinkers in prison or worse. To innovate means to think outside the box means to be a free thinker. Get my drift? Once the communists fall or somehow find a way to allow people to say or think anything they want, then your assertions about the China of the future where they will innovate and no longer have to copy or reverse engineer products in order to compete. Until that time, you are just staring down a pipe dream.
Note that this doesn't mean they won't still fuck up the western economy. But that is more a function of western companies and their bonus chasing executives not giving a rat's ass about where they get their money and offshoring the manufacture of technology invented in the west; and turning a blind eye to China copying it for their own use since they will have got their bonuses by then.
Just sell your house to pay off your student loan.
People are hanged, horses are hung.
Trying to get a Windows app to jump through a ragged hoop is not a very good example. If you can leave Wine out of your equation, then your point might have meaning.
But all that is, is assigning properties to the card object. And performing operations based on properties an object has is something that is quite common. So I still say this is nothing novel. Why is it patentable?
Really, isn't this just an obvious extension? What is patentable about age related permissions or permissions in general. I don't see anything all that novel in this. Ridiculous.
Even if the terrorists had money and lost the case, it isn't likely they would pay up in a manner timely enough to satisfy those doing the suing. On the other hand, the legal entities like airlines and security services have to pay if they want to stay in business (assuming they lose the case). I think those that are reasonable still also blame the terrorists. The unreasonable or those who are cynical or looking for someone to blame will also put a lot of blame on the other parties. Those who are reasonable usually only blame those other than the terrorists when there really is negligence in security. But in general, I do agree that too much emphasis is placed on ridiculous and often flawed by political correctness security measure and less on intelligence activity and communication. On 9/11 we know the intelligence community figured out the bad guys needed to be at least stopped and questioned. Poor communication and siloing between agencies was a major cause of not stopping it. And not a lack of groping TSA agents and body scanners.
NO. It does not protect you if the defamation/libel is in the link. From the Toronto Sun article on the matter:
“The Internet, in short, cannot provide access to information without hyperlinks,” wrote Justice Rosalie Abella. “Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and as a result, freedom of expression.”
While the decision was unanimous, two justices warned that framing or endorsing the link as the truth or accurate could still land an Internet linker in court.
“Combined text and hyperlink may amount to publication of defamatory material,” wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Morris Fish. “If the text communicates agreement with the content linked to, then the hyperlinker should be liable for the defamatory content.”
If man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings. Get off my lawn. A lot more difficult than we might imagine right now. And maybe we don't have all the technology required right now (but maybe do), but we have to start somewhere. Because if we don't start we won't go anywhere. It is easier to say why we can't than to try. On the other hand, this guy is very right about the point that we can't just give up on fixing the things we have already fucked up on earth just because we can leave eventually. For one, some might want to stay, and in any event it is good to have the choice. If humans are still on the planet 500 years from now (we haven't nuked ourselves etc.), and we haven't reduced ourselves to stone age heathens, I'd be surprised if we haven't colonized at least the moon. I hate it when people assume based on current technology that we will never be able to do something in the future. Too many people saying what we can't do. Now get off my lawn.
I wonder what the Tea Party will make of this. Oh sorry I forgot, they don't even like reading newspapers. Science won't even make their radar.
FTFY: "The company appears to have devolved into a free-wheeling, cut-throat and paranoid culture that reached its logical conclusion as The Fox News Network,"
Pleeeeeease .... someone mod this up.
Check out the decisions of people before and after they go on an SSRI. The small sample of SSRI users I know tend to fall into a complacent, ultimately self destructive, state when they are on the pills for too long (6 months or more). It's not something I've seen widely published in the literature, just personal observation shared between myself and other non-SSRI users about SSRI users we know.
I believe this might also be the case with non-SSRI anti-depressants like Wellbutrin (which is really more like a serotonin production booster than something that keeps it from being removed from the system). I think this is a very good point and I'm glad you mentioned it.
I wonder how much of our great art would never have been created if these concentrated anti-depressants were invented centuries ago.