They've already fragmented the developer base slightly. This board revision rearranges which GPIO pins correspond to which pins on the GPIO header; unless software developers go to additional effort to detect the board revision and use the correct GPIO definitions, software developed to use the GPIO interface on the newer revision won't work on the older and vice-version.
I'm curious as to where they got the driver code for the USB controller from. There's no usable public documentation for that and probably never will be because it's a third-party IP core.
Prior to the release, Liz was actively encouraging forum members to promote it to non-hacker types and I think may even have banned someone for suggesting this was a bad idea.
Do your research on the Apple Corps vs Apple. Apple bought out the Apple Corps rights and name for $500M US and licensed back the record label back to them.
Apple only bought out the name after Apple Corps sued them for trademark infringement and breach of their settlement agreement in the previous trial, and this was well after Apple had gone into the music business having previously agreed not to.
The font was small and had no background box, making it unreadable in many scenes and useless for my then fiance.
That's in large part the fault of your DVDs rather than the player. DVD subtitles are bitmap overlays which don't generally have any kind of background box. Whilst some DVDs do support old-fashioned closed captions, a lot of DVD players don't handle outputting them because they use a really old and quirky and US-specific data format in the vertical blanking interval that's really hard to support (and apparently can't be supported at all on high-definition outputs).
Unfortunately, people - forensic scientists, detectives, prosecutors, juries,... - have gotten the idea that DNA is basically infallible proof of guilt when in fact it's nothing of the sort.
As I understand it, players bought the underpriced item from one vendor with one form of in-game currency and could then sell it in return for a different in-game currency (or maybe not even that). There was no direct exchange rate from one currency to the other.
As I understand it, you couldn't actually get an infinite amount of free money this way. All you could do was exchange one in-game currency for another in-game currency at a much better price than ArenaNet intended. Since there was no path back in the opposite direction, the amount you could actually make this way was limited by the amount of the first currency you could get via other means.
.Net's not bad but ties you into Windows. Mono though, ugh - memory leaks out the wazoo on long-running servers that run fine under Microsoft.Net, a garbage collector that sucks compared to what Java had in 1992 let alone 2012, and as for backwards compatibility...
IIRC, there are various third parties who've estimated the amount invested in his ponzi scheme based on the blockchain and other externally-verifiable information and it's definitely in the general ballpark of several million dollars.
Actually, if it was a USD ponzi the Feds would seize all the operator's cash and try and clawback money from early investors in order to repay as much of the investors' initial investments as possible. Generally it's not much - I think Madoff's victims got cents on the dollar - but it's better than Bitcoin investors are likely to get. Then they charge the Ponzi operator with fraud and he goes to jail for a long time in order to discourage anyone else who might want to try the same idea.
The part you're missing is the brigade of shills on the Bitcoin forums who called anyone that pointed out that this was a Ponzi a troll and insisted that they were just too stupid to figure out how the operator of the scheme had managed to achieve such good returns. (Some of them even insisted that they knew how he was doing it, though they consistently refused to actually say.) Social conformity is a powerful thing; a lot of people are willing to put their concerns aside and do really foolish things so long as everyone around them is telling them that they're idiots for not doing them.
Nope, he's a scumbag. For instance, let's talk about backwards compatibility and breaking people's code. A while ago the Mono project released a.Net wrapper for SQLite that various projects used and like all Mono-developed libraries it was designed to run under.Net as well as Mono. Then the Mono developers decided to discontinue development on it in favour of a new wrapper library that wasn't API compatible and actually broke the old library in newer Mono releases. So you could still run applications that relied on this Mono-supplied and Mono-developed library under Windows.Net quite trivially but they didn't work under Mono itself without downgrading to an ancient version which distros didn't ship anymore.
It does have the same "benefits". There were observational studies in African countries of female circumcision just like the ones of male circumcision, and they found that female circumcision caused roughly the same reduction in HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision did amongst men. It's just that the researchers chose to assume that reduction was due to confounding factors and should be ignored rather than charging in and launching a badly-conducted RCT. There was no reason to conclude that confounding factors were any more likely for female than male circumcision, except distaste for one that didn't apply to the other.
Same way as you'd explain the health benefits of male circumcision. Observational studies using the same methodology as the ones on male circumcision found that female circumcision was similarly effective at preventing HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision was amongst men. The research community has just chosen not to believe or act on this for reasons that are entirely political and have nothing to do with the evidence. (On the other hand, studies have found that male circumcision is totally ineffective at preventing HIV infection amongst men's female partners, but the scientific community has ignored this and chosen to proceed with it as a method of preventing HIV infection amongst women anyway.)
Unless I'm entirely mistaken, the specific studies in question are the African studies which your links rely on as proof that circumcision reduces HIV infection. (All three studies were conducted by the same group over the same time period and use the same methodology; I suspect that if they didn't get good enough results they were planning to pool them in one study.) The circumcised men were instructed not to have sex for the first two months of the 12-month study period whereas the control group were allowed to; in addition, because all men were given free condoms and advice on safer sex at every visit but the circumcised men had more follow-up visits the circumcised group had better access to both condoms and advice.
The APA article your links bases their claims on is also misleading in other ways. For example, the 3 randomised trials were not exactly " consistent with previous ecological and observational studies in Africa, Europe, and the United States" - as I recall the observational studies showed much larger benefits (and in fact the more robust the studies are, the smaller the effect seems to be). The Ugandan trial also couldn't actually show that "the protective effect of circumcision increased with longer time from surgery" as they claim because there was no control group after 12 months and therefore not a sliver of evidence that the decrease in HIV infection rates over time had anything to do with circumcision whatsoever; while didn't stop the researchers from claiming it as a benefit from circumcision and even extrapolating the decrease out into the distant future and prominently quoting the extrapolated figures in their abstract, they had no basis for those claims whatsoever.
Also, the bit about "Male circumcision and HIV protection among MSM have not been studied as well as heterosexual transmission" is weasel-worded bullshit - we've studied this to death even after study after study showed no benefit, and subsequent studies have still shown no benefit. The lack of evidence for it working has nothing to do with lack of research - we've researched it plenty and it just doesn't work. Furthermore, notice how they dismiss all the studies showing that circumcision doesn't affect the risk of men transmitting HIV to their female partners and cherry-pick some that do; in practice things may be even worse because studies that were showing early signs of concluding that it actually increased the risk to female partners have been terminated early for getting undesirable results!
True fact: according to the best scientific evidence available, female circumcision is equally as effective at reducing HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision is amongst men. For some weird reason, scientific researchers automatically attributed their results on female circumcision to flaws in their studies and treated near-identical results on male circumcision as proof that it was an effective solution that must be applied immediately, even though there was no scientific reason to believe either kind of study was any more (or any less) flawed than the other. If anyone here believes that the popularity of male circumcision has anything to do with actual scientific benefits, I have some really nice sugar pills to sell them.
Not only that, from what I can tell the African trials were an exercise in how not to conduct a reliable scientific study and it's a mystery that everyone takes them so seriously. Some of the screw-ups were pretty spectacular - the circumcised group had additional counselling on condom use and safe sex compared to the control and weren't allowed or able to have sex for a relatively large proportion of the study period. Others were more subtle. For instance, they terminated the trial early and circumcised the control group, supposedly because the benefits were so great that they couldn't ethically leave, and this kind of early termination has been shown to cause researchers to find effects that did not in reality actually exist in trials like this one.
They also noticed that the rate of HIV infection amongst the members of the study decreased after the end of the trial and somehow concluded that this was the result of circumcision somehow becoming more effective over time, despite the fact that this could just as easily be caused by (for instance) their exposure decreasing as they got older for unrelated reasons and the lack of a plausible mechanism through which this would happen. They then extrapolated out this decrease into the future and quoted this extrapolated figure prominently as evidence of the effectiveness of circumcision. That prominent journals and institutions were willing to buy into this is truely bizarre.
Well, the fact that the original iPod was so much smaller and slimmer than previous MP3 players was definitely the result of advances in technology that had nothing to do with Apple. More specifically, Hitachi invented a much smaller hard disk than was previously possible and Apple managed to buy up almost all of their production run, locking out competitors from buying it.
Slashdot Mirror
They've already fragmented the developer base slightly. This board revision rearranges which GPIO pins correspond to which pins on the GPIO header; unless software developers go to additional effort to detect the board revision and use the correct GPIO definitions, software developed to use the GPIO interface on the newer revision won't work on the older and vice-version.
I'm curious as to where they got the driver code for the USB controller from. There's no usable public documentation for that and probably never will be because it's a third-party IP core.
Prior to the release, Liz was actively encouraging forum members to promote it to non-hacker types and I think may even have banned someone for suggesting this was a bad idea.
That'd probably make sense if the only USB devices you're planning on using are the keyboard and mouse. There are more problems with USB than just devices that use too much power, see this forum thread: http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=12097&start=250
Supposedly the RasPi Foundation has been banning people from their forums for suggesting that new purchasers should be told about this issue, so it's probably not suprising if you haven't head about it.
Do your research on the Apple Corps vs Apple. Apple bought out the Apple Corps rights and name for $500M US and licensed back the record label back to them.
Apple only bought out the name after Apple Corps sued them for trademark infringement and breach of their settlement agreement in the previous trial, and this was well after Apple had gone into the music business having previously agreed not to.
The font was small and had no background box, making it unreadable in many scenes and useless for my then fiance.
That's in large part the fault of your DVDs rather than the player. DVD subtitles are bitmap overlays which don't generally have any kind of background box. Whilst some DVDs do support old-fashioned closed captions, a lot of DVD players don't handle outputting them because they use a really old and quirky and US-specific data format in the vertical blanking interval that's really hard to support (and apparently can't be supported at all on high-definition outputs).
Unfortunately, people - forensic scientists, detectives, prosecutors, juries, ... - have gotten the idea that DNA is basically infallible proof of guilt when in fact it's nothing of the sort.
Just don't ask about the Ankh-Morpork pork futures warehouse...
As I understand it, players bought the underpriced item from one vendor with one form of in-game currency and could then sell it in return for a different in-game currency (or maybe not even that). There was no direct exchange rate from one currency to the other.
As I understand it, you couldn't actually get an infinite amount of free money this way. All you could do was exchange one in-game currency for another in-game currency at a much better price than ArenaNet intended. Since there was no path back in the opposite direction, the amount you could actually make this way was limited by the amount of the first currency you could get via other means.
Is GCJ actually capable of running any Java desktop applications these days? Last I heard it had kind of been left behind by improvements in Java.
Apparently it's a security regression in the JDK, was analyzed and then patched in IcedTea yesterday
.Net's not bad but ties you into Windows. Mono though, ugh - memory leaks out the wazoo on long-running servers that run fine under Microsoft .Net, a garbage collector that sucks compared to what Java had in 1992 let alone 2012, and as for backwards compatibility...
On the other hand, NASA failed to realise that building the contents of a capsule that was going to be filled with high-pressure oxygen from materials that spontaneously combusted when in a high-pressure environment of pure oxygen might be a bad idea until it killed an entire crew of astronauts in early testing.
IIRC, there are various third parties who've estimated the amount invested in his ponzi scheme based on the blockchain and other externally-verifiable information and it's definitely in the general ballpark of several million dollars.
Actually, if it was a USD ponzi the Feds would seize all the operator's cash and try and clawback money from early investors in order to repay as much of the investors' initial investments as possible. Generally it's not much - I think Madoff's victims got cents on the dollar - but it's better than Bitcoin investors are likely to get. Then they charge the Ponzi operator with fraud and he goes to jail for a long time in order to discourage anyone else who might want to try the same idea.
The part you're missing is the brigade of shills on the Bitcoin forums who called anyone that pointed out that this was a Ponzi a troll and insisted that they were just too stupid to figure out how the operator of the scheme had managed to achieve such good returns. (Some of them even insisted that they knew how he was doing it, though they consistently refused to actually say.) Social conformity is a powerful thing; a lot of people are willing to put their concerns aside and do really foolish things so long as everyone around them is telling them that they're idiots for not doing them.
Nope, he's a scumbag. For instance, let's talk about backwards compatibility and breaking people's code. A while ago the Mono project released a .Net wrapper for SQLite that various projects used and like all Mono-developed libraries it was designed to run under .Net as well as Mono. Then the Mono developers decided to discontinue development on it in favour of a new wrapper library that wasn't API compatible and actually broke the old library in newer Mono releases. So you could still run applications that relied on this Mono-supplied and Mono-developed library under Windows .Net quite trivially but they didn't work under Mono itself without downgrading to an ancient version which distros didn't ship anymore.
It does have the same "benefits". There were observational studies in African countries of female circumcision just like the ones of male circumcision, and they found that female circumcision caused roughly the same reduction in HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision did amongst men. It's just that the researchers chose to assume that reduction was due to confounding factors and should be ignored rather than charging in and launching a badly-conducted RCT. There was no reason to conclude that confounding factors were any more likely for female than male circumcision, except distaste for one that didn't apply to the other.
Same way as you'd explain the health benefits of male circumcision. Observational studies using the same methodology as the ones on male circumcision found that female circumcision was similarly effective at preventing HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision was amongst men. The research community has just chosen not to believe or act on this for reasons that are entirely political and have nothing to do with the evidence. (On the other hand, studies have found that male circumcision is totally ineffective at preventing HIV infection amongst men's female partners, but the scientific community has ignored this and chosen to proceed with it as a method of preventing HIV infection amongst women anyway.)
Unless I'm entirely mistaken, the specific studies in question are the African studies which your links rely on as proof that circumcision reduces HIV infection. (All three studies were conducted by the same group over the same time period and use the same methodology; I suspect that if they didn't get good enough results they were planning to pool them in one study.) The circumcised men were instructed not to have sex for the first two months of the 12-month study period whereas the control group were allowed to; in addition, because all men were given free condoms and advice on safer sex at every visit but the circumcised men had more follow-up visits the circumcised group had better access to both condoms and advice.
The APA article your links bases their claims on is also misleading in other ways. For example, the 3 randomised trials were not exactly " consistent with previous ecological and observational studies in Africa, Europe, and the United States" - as I recall the observational studies showed much larger benefits (and in fact the more robust the studies are, the smaller the effect seems to be). The Ugandan trial also couldn't actually show that "the protective effect of circumcision increased with longer time from surgery" as they claim because there was no control group after 12 months and therefore not a sliver of evidence that the decrease in HIV infection rates over time had anything to do with circumcision whatsoever; while didn't stop the researchers from claiming it as a benefit from circumcision and even extrapolating the decrease out into the distant future and prominently quoting the extrapolated figures in their abstract, they had no basis for those claims whatsoever.
Also, the bit about "Male circumcision and HIV protection among MSM have not been studied as well as heterosexual transmission" is weasel-worded bullshit - we've studied this to death even after study after study showed no benefit, and subsequent studies have still shown no benefit. The lack of evidence for it working has nothing to do with lack of research - we've researched it plenty and it just doesn't work. Furthermore, notice how they dismiss all the studies showing that circumcision doesn't affect the risk of men transmitting HIV to their female partners and cherry-pick some that do; in practice things may be even worse because studies that were showing early signs of concluding that it actually increased the risk to female partners have been terminated early for getting undesirable results!
The task force also found no strong evidence that circumcised babies grew up with more urinary difficulties or sexual problems.
Did they actually bother to ask them about this properly? Because an awful lot of the studies which proponents of systematic circumcision have come up with to prove that circumcised men have managed to screw this up. (For instance, the African studies asked men about their level of satisfaction with their sex life - something like 99% of all men rated their sex lives as "very good", which doesn't exactly make for a terribly sensitive measure of how it affected them.) Meanwhile, a very clever Danish study found that not only did circumcised men have more difficulty orgasming, their female partners had a whole bunch more problems than the partners of uncircumcised men.
True fact: according to the best scientific evidence available, female circumcision is equally as effective at reducing HIV infection amongst women as male circumcision is amongst men. For some weird reason, scientific researchers automatically attributed their results on female circumcision to flaws in their studies and treated near-identical results on male circumcision as proof that it was an effective solution that must be applied immediately, even though there was no scientific reason to believe either kind of study was any more (or any less) flawed than the other. If anyone here believes that the popularity of male circumcision has anything to do with actual scientific benefits, I have some really nice sugar pills to sell them.
Not only that, from what I can tell the African trials were an exercise in how not to conduct a reliable scientific study and it's a mystery that everyone takes them so seriously. Some of the screw-ups were pretty spectacular - the circumcised group had additional counselling on condom use and safe sex compared to the control and weren't allowed or able to have sex for a relatively large proportion of the study period. Others were more subtle. For instance, they terminated the trial early and circumcised the control group, supposedly because the benefits were so great that they couldn't ethically leave, and this kind of early termination has been shown to cause researchers to find effects that did not in reality actually exist in trials like this one.
They also noticed that the rate of HIV infection amongst the members of the study decreased after the end of the trial and somehow concluded that this was the result of circumcision somehow becoming more effective over time, despite the fact that this could just as easily be caused by (for instance) their exposure decreasing as they got older for unrelated reasons and the lack of a plausible mechanism through which this would happen. They then extrapolated out this decrease into the future and quoted this extrapolated figure prominently as evidence of the effectiveness of circumcision. That prominent journals and institutions were willing to buy into this is truely bizarre.
Well, the fact that the original iPod was so much smaller and slimmer than previous MP3 players was definitely the result of advances in technology that had nothing to do with Apple. More specifically, Hitachi invented a much smaller hard disk than was previously possible and Apple managed to buy up almost all of their production run, locking out competitors from buying it.