Sounds like we need research into CBD dominant marijuana then. It would be great if we had a time release pill with all those benefits rather than having to smoke it. And if we could isolate the chemicals involved and understand them, we might be able to create more drugs with those specific individual benefits.
There is more medical support behind Marijuana than just epilepsy. It is also useful for treating nausea for cancer patients and chronic pain. But I agree that part of the problem with medical marijuana is that some of the strongest proponents are just potheads latching onto the medical angle. I've had people downplay the need for medical research into Marijuana under the argument that people can just smoke it.
The waste that comes out of the reactor is arguably safer than what went in. It is less radioactive than when it went in. And uranium is already toxic. I'd love to see a real scientific analysis of this. I have always been unclear why the waste is so frightening. Compared to the plastic and chemicals we dump into the oceans, there is a much smaller volume of radioactive waste. Nobody complains when that uranium goes out the smokestack of a coal plant into the air, but you make it 1/10th as radioactive and everybody calls it "nuclear waste" goes nuts about it.
This is the poorly-written flamebait article that blames technology for a non-technology problem.
The article interviews the people who lost shifts because they got poor reviews. But there's no interview of the people who got extra shifts because they were getting good reviews! Later, the author of the article blames the rating system when a waitress who works at a breastaurant gets positive feedback about her boobs. Stop blaming the tablet for human behavior. The statistics in the article is awful too. It just assumes the people using the numbers didn't do any math, and just see a single 1 out of 5 in the reviews and so someone is fired. They complain that the review might be bad because of the food not the wait staff, EVEN THOUGH THE SURVEYS SPECIFICALLY ASK THAT.
Only read this article if you want to be irate at bad reporting.
While yes, the headline is a bit sensational, it probably really did feel like a machine fired him. Imagine if you couldn't log-in, couldn't badge-in, etc -- but nobody knew why! That really would feel like the computer fired you. But then when security comes to escort you out because the computer said so, that could feel really creepy.
Have you ever been to a store and the registers were "down" and you couldn't buy anything? It's a really weird feeling because you have the item, you have the money, the clerk is there to take the money, but the computer refuses to let them complete the sale. It makes you feel out-of-control, like the world is run by an invisible ghost and you are subject to it's control rather than the other way around. A similar feeling comes from gigantic bureaucracies, where people agree that something makes sense but there is some high-level manager with a policy that blocks something.
Did the internet change things, or the telephone? I also haven't read the text, but I never understood why internet orders are any different from telephone catalog orders.
Don't forget about the other 7 committee members who voted the same way. Don't get carried away by the Slashdot summary: they were all colluding to do this.
The summary is misleading. It claims Miguel Santiago did it, but in reality the entire committee approved the changes 8-0. Why the sudden 180 degree turn? The bill essentially does nothing now. The linked article shows a very clear diff of the text. Who introduced the bill in the first place, and why weren't they on the committee? Or did they just vote to remove all their own work? Was this the plan all along?
3/4 of the way through the project: "If we move the front-left imager 6 inches to the left and adjust the angle 5% up we should fix scenario thusandsuch..." That means you need all new test data, which in this case might require running over several old ladies a few times to get the test data you need.;-)
If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.
We have one, it is called e-verify. The laws mandating its use vary by industry and state.
He didn't say "security-trumps-all" he said "security above speed." You just pretended he said something, then attacked the thing he didn't say. You have a bright future as a politician!
That approach works but is limited in several ways: You can only playback scenarios that have actually happened, and it doesn't work if the hardware & sensor arrangement is still changing. It is also slow since it is more of an integration test than a unit test. I've worked with this approach before and it is nice once everything is locked-down, but it is not great during the R&D phase.
It sounds like it was 85-10 to add it to the defense bill. How many of those senators voted to add it to the bill, but have no intent to vote on the actual bill itself? Maybe they think it will kill the bill?
Shit! We better get right on ripping RS-485 out of oil refineries, chemical plants, and other hazardous industries around the world then!
In this case, engineers are testing and qualifying each device. It's not like an end-user just buys an RS485 device and plugs it into the bus. Although CAN suffers from the same problem. Compare them to USB, where everything is sufficiently robust and standardized that you can buy an off-the-shelf USB device and connect it. Although USB doesn't support the cable length we would need for home wiring.
While it will still allow applicants to submit their SAT or ACT scores, university officials said they would let prospective undergraduates send transcripts on their own and submit video introductions and nontraditional materials to supplement their applications.
It may not be required, but I suspect that most students will provide them anyway. Students apply to multiple universities so they will have the test scores. The students who don't provide them may be at a disadvantage compared to the students that do. These tests exist because it is hard to screen every possible application by watching their personalized video. Objective measures are useful and they won't go away.
You are comparing the tolerance range of one number to a conclusion about something irrelevant. If my oven temperature is 450F +/- 250F, and the cook time is 20 hours +/- 10, I guarantee you the chicken will be hot. You can't just dismiss the entire thing because of one tolerance range on one number.
No, they aren't. The sea level rise has nothing to do with the amount of ice remaining in Antarctica. And the article doesn't say 200 feet of sea level change. Stop making up stuff.
I know for me, tolerance ranges of 110% of nominal value lead me to cast a VERY skeptical eye on the Nature article
What is the tolerance range of the NASA article? The one you linked to doesn't say. Right now, you are comparing a paper with little more than a press release, then looking at one number and discarding the paper.
I believe the correct value is 50, with a tolerance range from 0 to 100" I'd send them back to the bench after a good chewing out or they'd be sent out to the street...
You shouldn't, because you may not need more accuracy than that. If you had an army of 5000 soldiers, and your spies reported that the advancing army had 50,000 +/- 30,000 soldiers, would you send them back out for a more accurate count? No, you would pack up and run. Yes, the confidence interval is greater than the raw number. But it clearly isn't worth going back and getting an accurate count.
In science, the idea isn't to only publish when you have certainty. The idea is to publish when you have valid data that can be used to advance the state of the art. This is a starting point for discussion, further studies, more funding, etc.
The NASA article is dated Oct 2015, and it claims that the gains in West Antarctica outweigh the losses in East Antarctica. The Nature article is dated 2018, it specifically addresses the NASA data, and claims that they have even better analysis of the satellite information. This is what peer review is for. Hopefully NASA was consulted in this paper.
I don't agree in this case, but I like your vigilance. Any bill that grants a pardon to an individual or company seems like it also should qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Here's why: Congress could get around the Bill of Attainder clause by passing a law that makes everyone a criminal, then passing a law exempting specific individuals. It would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder but circumventing the constitution.
IMHO, the telecom neutrality bill was similar to this tactic. In this case, the government coerced companies into violating the law, then exempted them. In fairness, the government and those companies should have been prosecuted. They basically pardoned themselves and their accomplices.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like we need research into CBD dominant marijuana then. It would be great if we had a time release pill with all those benefits rather than having to smoke it. And if we could isolate the chemicals involved and understand them, we might be able to create more drugs with those specific individual benefits.
There is more medical support behind Marijuana than just epilepsy. It is also useful for treating nausea for cancer patients and chronic pain. But I agree that part of the problem with medical marijuana is that some of the strongest proponents are just potheads latching onto the medical angle. I've had people downplay the need for medical research into Marijuana under the argument that people can just smoke it.
The waste that comes out of the reactor is arguably safer than what went in. It is less radioactive than when it went in. And uranium is already toxic. I'd love to see a real scientific analysis of this. I have always been unclear why the waste is so frightening. Compared to the plastic and chemicals we dump into the oceans, there is a much smaller volume of radioactive waste. Nobody complains when that uranium goes out the smokestack of a coal plant into the air, but you make it 1/10th as radioactive and everybody calls it "nuclear waste" goes nuts about it.
How so?
This is the poorly-written flamebait article that blames technology for a non-technology problem.
The article interviews the people who lost shifts because they got poor reviews. But there's no interview of the people who got extra shifts because they were getting good reviews! Later, the author of the article blames the rating system when a waitress who works at a breastaurant gets positive feedback about her boobs. Stop blaming the tablet for human behavior. The statistics in the article is awful too. It just assumes the people using the numbers didn't do any math, and just see a single 1 out of 5 in the reviews and so someone is fired. They complain that the review might be bad because of the food not the wait staff, EVEN THOUGH THE SURVEYS SPECIFICALLY ASK THAT.
Only read this article if you want to be irate at bad reporting.
sex offenders, suspended students, fired employees, suspected gang members, or anyone else placed on a school's "blacklist" enters the premises.
Every school in my state has the doors locked and you have to buzz in. Problem solved, not cameras required.
While yes, the headline is a bit sensational, it probably really did feel like a machine fired him. Imagine if you couldn't log-in, couldn't badge-in, etc -- but nobody knew why! That really would feel like the computer fired you. But then when security comes to escort you out because the computer said so, that could feel really creepy.
Have you ever been to a store and the registers were "down" and you couldn't buy anything? It's a really weird feeling because you have the item, you have the money, the clerk is there to take the money, but the computer refuses to let them complete the sale. It makes you feel out-of-control, like the world is run by an invisible ghost and you are subject to it's control rather than the other way around. A similar feeling comes from gigantic bureaucracies, where people agree that something makes sense but there is some high-level manager with a policy that blocks something.
Did the internet change things, or the telephone? I also haven't read the text, but I never understood why internet orders are any different from telephone catalog orders.
The article says 8 out of 8, but doesn't list the names. Not sure why that page shows 13 but the article says 8.
Don't forget about the other 7 committee members who voted the same way. Don't get carried away by the Slashdot summary: they were all colluding to do this.
The summary is misleading. It claims Miguel Santiago did it, but in reality the entire committee approved the changes 8-0. Why the sudden 180 degree turn? The bill essentially does nothing now. The linked article shows a very clear diff of the text. Who introduced the bill in the first place, and why weren't they on the committee? Or did they just vote to remove all their own work? Was this the plan all along?
3/4 of the way through the project: "If we move the front-left imager 6 inches to the left and adjust the angle 5% up we should fix scenario thusandsuch..." That means you need all new test data, which in this case might require running over several old ladies a few times to get the test data you need. ;-)
If we want to stop immigration, we simply need a national employment database and fine the hell out of any employer employing people not approved to work.
We have one, it is called e-verify. The laws mandating its use vary by industry and state.
He didn't say "security-trumps-all" he said "security above speed." You just pretended he said something, then attacked the thing he didn't say. You have a bright future as a politician!
That approach works but is limited in several ways: You can only playback scenarios that have actually happened, and it doesn't work if the hardware & sensor arrangement is still changing. It is also slow since it is more of an integration test than a unit test. I've worked with this approach before and it is nice once everything is locked-down, but it is not great during the R&D phase.
It sounds like it was 85-10 to add it to the defense bill. How many of those senators voted to add it to the bill, but have no intent to vote on the actual bill itself? Maybe they think it will kill the bill?
Shit! We better get right on ripping RS-485 out of oil refineries, chemical plants, and other hazardous industries around the world then!
In this case, engineers are testing and qualifying each device. It's not like an end-user just buys an RS485 device and plugs it into the bus. Although CAN suffers from the same problem. Compare them to USB, where everything is sufficiently robust and standardized that you can buy an off-the-shelf USB device and connect it. Although USB doesn't support the cable length we would need for home wiring.
While it will still allow applicants to submit their SAT or ACT scores, university officials said they would let prospective undergraduates send transcripts on their own and submit video introductions and nontraditional materials to supplement their applications.
It may not be required, but I suspect that most students will provide them anyway. Students apply to multiple universities so they will have the test scores. The students who don't provide them may be at a disadvantage compared to the students that do. These tests exist because it is hard to screen every possible application by watching their personalized video. Objective measures are useful and they won't go away.
You are comparing the tolerance range of one number to a conclusion about something irrelevant. If my oven temperature is 450F +/- 250F, and the cook time is 20 hours +/- 10, I guarantee you the chicken will be hot. You can't just dismiss the entire thing because of one tolerance range on one number.
No, they aren't. The sea level rise has nothing to do with the amount of ice remaining in Antarctica. And the article doesn't say 200 feet of sea level change. Stop making up stuff.
I know for me, tolerance ranges of 110% of nominal value lead me to cast a VERY skeptical eye on the Nature article
What is the tolerance range of the NASA article? The one you linked to doesn't say. Right now, you are comparing a paper with little more than a press release, then looking at one number and discarding the paper.
I believe the correct value is 50, with a tolerance range from 0 to 100" I'd send them back to the bench after a good chewing out or they'd be sent out to the street...
You shouldn't, because you may not need more accuracy than that. If you had an army of 5000 soldiers, and your spies reported that the advancing army had 50,000 +/- 30,000 soldiers, would you send them back out for a more accurate count? No, you would pack up and run. Yes, the confidence interval is greater than the raw number. But it clearly isn't worth going back and getting an accurate count.
In science, the idea isn't to only publish when you have certainty. The idea is to publish when you have valid data that can be used to advance the state of the art. This is a starting point for discussion, further studies, more funding, etc.
Even with a accelerating melt, there will be most all of the ice in 250 years,
That's not what the article is about. They aren't saying Antarctica will run out of ice.
So which is it?
The NASA article is dated Oct 2015, and it claims that the gains in West Antarctica outweigh the losses in East Antarctica. The Nature article is dated 2018, it specifically addresses the NASA data, and claims that they have even better analysis of the satellite information. This is what peer review is for. Hopefully NASA was consulted in this paper.
I don't agree in this case, but I like your vigilance. Any bill that grants a pardon to an individual or company seems like it also should qualify as a Bill of Attainder. Here's why: Congress could get around the Bill of Attainder clause by passing a law that makes everyone a criminal, then passing a law exempting specific individuals. It would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder but circumventing the constitution.
IMHO, the telecom neutrality bill was similar to this tactic. In this case, the government coerced companies into violating the law, then exempted them. In fairness, the government and those companies should have been prosecuted. They basically pardoned themselves and their accomplices.