"Once we inevitably elect the next tyrant, will this law help or hurt his ascent to power?" What do you think Hitler would have done with such a law? I think it's rather clear.
Rather clear? Yes, he'd have ignored it, because his ascent to power was built on populism and illegal thugs, not on obeying the technicalities of existing laws. Once he got into power, the presence or absence of the law would be irrelevant, because he'd control the judiciary.
I don't see how your thought experiment helps. It just tells us that consideration of tyrants is the wrong way to think about these laws.
When I was looked I was unable to find the SNPs. This might be because I did it as soon as 23andMe reduced prices to $200 for the first time, before they'd cleaned up their website.
Turning "probability of alzheimers disease" into a single percentage is a meaningless project. Alzheimers has an age likelihood - so at age 50, some portion of the population will have the pre-clinical precursor, some portion will have mild symptoms, some moderate, some severe. By age 60, and 70, and 80 and 90, the proportions change again.
So turning it into a single percentage number, as 23andMe did, is unable to capture what should be captured. It reeks of a company who did just enough research to put up a percentage number (because that's how their UI worked and that's what their UX designers thought users wanted to see), but didn't have the integrity to think through whether it was meaningful.
Indeed, if you wanted a single numerical probability for whether you'll show clinical signs of Alzheimers before you die, you'd likely get a more accurate number by estimating when you'll die from other factors like cancer or heart disease -- will it be before the "numbers game" of alzheimers and old age catches up with you, or not?
My family all had our genomes sequenced by 23andMe. The only area we have expertise in is Alzheimers, and (1) their Alzheimers explanations were misleading, (2) they made it REALLY hard to learn the raw data about what they found in our genomes, i.e. which SNPs they tested and what they found: instead they only boiled it down into a useless "you have 20% chance of getting Alzheimers" which was scientifically incorrect, lacked confidence levels, lacked context.
I would love to get the raw data from their results, and I'd love to have someone better than them provide the tools to analyze & understand it.
I love this section from the Opus 1.1 release notes:
1.1 also adds temporal VBR, an accidental discovery from a bug in an earlier pre-release. Temporal VBR is new heuristic that adds bits to loud frames and steals them from quiet frames. This runs counter to classic psychoacoustics; critical band energies matter, not the broadband frame energy. In addition, TVBR does not appear to be exploiting temporal postecho effects.
Nevertheless, listening tests show a substantial advantage on a number of samples. I'll be the first to admit we haven't completely determined why, but my best theory is that strong, early reverberant reflections are better coded by the temporary allocation boost, stabilizing the stereo image after transients especially at low bitrates.
Do you reckon that police detectives look at crime scenes, sigh, and say that laws will never work to change behavior - there'll always be crime - and the only real solution is a technical one to make the crime impossible in the first place.
And tech-savy Slashdot readers look at technical measures, sigh, and say that technical measures will never work to change behavior - there'll always be hackers - and the only real solution is a legal one.
You want Facebook to add a feature which lets you get by without logging into facebook as frequently? Giving them fewer opportunities to show you ads and mine your social behavior? I agree it'd be neat, but can't imagine it happening.
They talk about genetic "engineering" as if it's a precise technical operation. But my understanding is that the kind of "engineering" done is to get a plasmid with some gene and blast it randomly at the plant. Don't know how it will land, don't know where, don't know how it will be expressed. So you then grow lots of plants with this randomly inserted genetic sequence and test whether any of the plants end up having the behavior you desire and no apparent behaviors that you don't want.
"Engineering" always seemed a deliberately misleading word.
That said, I totally buy what the article said from the NAS, that the health risks from blasting genes are low, and the health risks from UV radiation to create random mutations is low.
The article didn't at all address the environmental risks of over farming due to non-enhanced crops vs the environmental risks of irradiated vs gene-inserted crops. And didn't mention any economic risks with monopolies or IP ownership of seeds themselves.
Addressing solely "health" risks at point of consumption is also deliberately misleading.
: Why is exploiting a browser weakness an offense for a company? If I make a web page that crashes IE6, am I at fault?
Just to note, exploiting a website weakness, or a crummy website that ends up exposing people's accounts through crafted http requests, is also an offense - counts as unauthorized access I think. So I'm happy to see things going the other way as well.
the BSD licenses appear to be a failure psychologically. The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code, but are ok if the stuff disappears in proprietary forks.
You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.
That's okay. I'm a huge proponent of BSD and I'm delighted wherever it goes. I'm not sure which proponents you're referring to, but they might be figments of your own prejudices, and I don't believe that any individual examples of your phenomenon would be representative.
If you take as axiomatic that all science should go solely in a science journal, and all discussion about science should go solely in a philosophy journal, and there exists science which is also a discussion about science -- then where should it go?
The authors are making the claim that science can be used to discuss science, and they back it up with a decent analysis. Either their claim is wrong, or your axioms are wrong. You can't make this go away just by waving your hands about definitions.
PS. Original definition of metaphysics was "the chapter in the book that came after [greek: "meta"] the chapter on physics". So no, not metaphysics by this definition either:)
It feels like YouTube ads have become much more common and obnoxious in the past few years. Has anyone else noticed this? I used to be content to click on a YouTube link but now each time I do a cost-benefit calculation -- is it really worth sitting through 30secs of irritating car ads or whatever just to see this little funny clip of two kittens and a tortoise? (or other material:) ).
I can read. I don't own an iOS or OS X device. That's what I meant by "Linux or windows user" - one who uses these operating systems rather than apple ones.
(1) Go to www.icloud.com (2) Click "forgot my password" (3) Enter my AppleID and click "Next" (4) Select "answer security questions" and click Next (5) Oops, it asks me to enter my AppleID again. I do so and click "Next" (6) Again I select "answer security questions" and click Next (7) It asks me my security question, and I answer, and click Next (8) It asks me for a new password, which I type out twice, and click Next (9) Oops! Session timed out! (after all of 40 seconds). Click Next (10) Back to step 3, I enter my appleID and click "Next" (11) Select "answer security questions" and click Next (12) Session timed out! after all of 20 seconds. Click Next (13) Enter my AppleID and click Next (14) oops! session timed out, after 10 seconds this time.
Will try again later. "iforgot.apple.com"? - maybe YOU forgot too!
My wife has a macbook pro, while I have a Surface. She now often reaches her hand to the screen to try to swipe/scroll her screen, instinctively thinking it would work, then is a little disappointed when it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you get $4.50 ?
1 apple = 75c at Trader Joe's, 50c at local second-rate produce stall
4oz lentils (protein) = 22c at Amazon
1lb other seasonal veg = 75c
"Once we inevitably elect the next tyrant, will this law help or hurt his ascent to power?" What do you think Hitler would have done with such a law? I think it's rather clear.
Rather clear? Yes, he'd have ignored it, because his ascent to power was built on populism and illegal thugs, not on obeying the technicalities of existing laws. Once he got into power, the presence or absence of the law would be irrelevant, because he'd control the judiciary.
I don't see how your thought experiment helps. It just tells us that consideration of tyrants is the wrong way to think about these laws.
When I was looked I was unable to find the SNPs. This might be because I did it as soon as 23andMe reduced prices to $200 for the first time, before they'd cleaned up their website.
Turning "probability of alzheimers disease" into a single percentage is a meaningless project. Alzheimers has an age likelihood - so at age 50, some portion of the population will have the pre-clinical precursor, some portion will have mild symptoms, some moderate, some severe. By age 60, and 70, and 80 and 90, the proportions change again.
So turning it into a single percentage number, as 23andMe did, is unable to capture what should be captured. It reeks of a company who did just enough research to put up a percentage number (because that's how their UI worked and that's what their UX designers thought users wanted to see), but didn't have the integrity to think through whether it was meaningful.
Indeed, if you wanted a single numerical probability for whether you'll show clinical signs of Alzheimers before you die, you'd likely get a more accurate number by estimating when you'll die from other factors like cancer or heart disease -- will it be before the "numbers game" of alzheimers and old age catches up with you, or not?
Good.
My family all had our genomes sequenced by 23andMe. The only area we have expertise in is Alzheimers, and (1) their Alzheimers explanations were misleading, (2) they made it REALLY hard to learn the raw data about what they found in our genomes, i.e. which SNPs they tested and what they found: instead they only boiled it down into a useless "you have 20% chance of getting Alzheimers" which was scientifically incorrect, lacked confidence levels, lacked context.
I would love to get the raw data from their results, and I'd love to have someone better than them provide the tools to analyze & understand it.
I love this section from the Opus 1.1 release notes:
1.1 also adds temporal VBR, an accidental discovery from a bug in an earlier pre-release. Temporal VBR is new heuristic that adds bits to loud frames and steals them from quiet frames. This runs counter to classic psychoacoustics; critical band energies matter, not the broadband frame energy. In addition, TVBR does not appear to be exploiting temporal postecho effects.
Nevertheless, listening tests show a substantial advantage on a number of samples. I'll be the first to admit we haven't completely determined why, but my best theory is that strong, early reverberant reflections are better coded by the temporary allocation boost, stabilizing the stereo image after transients especially at low bitrates.
On the other hand, for cross-platform development between your two Android phones and your iPhone, maybe Microsoft's C# language is the right choice...
http://blog.xamarin.com/eight-reasons-c-sharp-is-the-best-language-for-mobile-development/
(disclaimer: I work on the VB/C# team at Microsoft)
Do you reckon that police detectives look at crime scenes, sigh, and say that laws will never work to change behavior - there'll always be crime - and the only real solution is a technical one to make the crime impossible in the first place.
And tech-savy Slashdot readers look at technical measures, sigh, and say that technical measures will never work to change behavior - there'll always be hackers - and the only real solution is a legal one.
You want Facebook to add a feature which lets you get by without logging into facebook as frequently? Giving them fewer opportunities to show you ads and mine your social behavior? I agree it'd be neat, but can't imagine it happening.
They talk about genetic "engineering" as if it's a precise technical operation. But my understanding is that the kind of "engineering" done is to get a plasmid with some gene and blast it randomly at the plant. Don't know how it will land, don't know where, don't know how it will be expressed. So you then grow lots of plants with this randomly inserted genetic sequence and test whether any of the plants end up having the behavior you desire and no apparent behaviors that you don't want.
"Engineering" always seemed a deliberately misleading word.
That said, I totally buy what the article said from the NAS, that the health risks from blasting genes are low, and the health risks from UV radiation to create random mutations is low.
The article didn't at all address the environmental risks of over farming due to non-enhanced crops vs the environmental risks of irradiated vs gene-inserted crops. And didn't mention any economic risks with monopolies or IP ownership of seeds themselves.
Addressing solely "health" risks at point of consumption is also deliberately misleading.
: Why is exploiting a browser weakness an offense for a company? If I make a web page that crashes IE6, am I at fault?
Just to note, exploiting a website weakness, or a crummy website that ends up exposing people's accounts through crafted http requests, is also an offense - counts as unauthorized access I think. So I'm happy to see things going the other way as well.
Did they know the same physiology that we do today? Did they know that the stomach and intestine were needed for digestion?
the BSD licenses appear to be a failure psychologically. The proponents of BSD-licensed software go apeshit when GPL-licensed software reuses their code, but are ok if the stuff disappears in proprietary forks.
You can see this, for example, with LibreOffice/OpenOffice: every LibreOffice release announcement draws ire from the OpenOffice crowd (well, particularly one OpenOffice developer) because the latter feels their code has been ripped off.
That's okay. I'm a huge proponent of BSD and I'm delighted wherever it goes. I'm not sure which proponents you're referring to, but they might be figments of your own prejudices, and I don't believe that any individual examples of your phenomenon would be representative.
Why is it interesting? -- because it won't be long before the monkeys can start working as editors on Slashdot.
No, the advisory said that it affects Vista and Server2008.
It explicitly says that Win7, Win8, Win8.1, WinRT, Server2008-R2 and Server2012 are unaffected.
Caveat: although I work at Microsoft, I know nothing about this alert other than what I read in TFA.
If you take as axiomatic that all science should go solely in a science journal, and all discussion about science should go solely in a philosophy journal, and there exists science which is also a discussion about science -- then where should it go?
The authors are making the claim that science can be used to discuss science, and they back it up with a decent analysis. Either their claim is wrong, or your axioms are wrong. You can't make this go away just by waving your hands about definitions.
PS. Original definition of metaphysics was "the chapter in the book that came after [greek: "meta"] the chapter on physics". So no, not metaphysics by this definition either :)
I have zero-tolerance the other way...
If the presenter "shoots first" by making a boring or pointless presentation, I retaliate by taking out my phone and getting on with my other work.
I've been reading the transcript. It's fantastic. The expert explains clearly and lucidly in terms that (I imagine are) understandable by non-techies.
The transcriber made some funny mistakes... Let me tell you about "parody bits" and "pointer D references" :)
On the subject of aggressive advertising...
It feels like YouTube ads have become much more common and obnoxious in the past few years. Has anyone else noticed this? I used to be content to click on a YouTube link but now each time I do a cost-benefit calculation -- is it really worth sitting through 30secs of irritating car ads or whatever just to see this little funny clip of two kittens and a tortoise? (or other material :) ).
Usually for me, the answer is now "no".
That sounds really clever. Gives both sides an incentive to be fair rather than outrageous in their demands
I can read. I don't own an iOS or OS X device. That's what I meant by "Linux or windows user" - one who uses these operating systems rather than apple ones.
I went here and tried to log in with my AppleID. It said:
Set up iCloud on a device to use iCloud.com.
Your Apple ID must be used to set up iCloud on an iOS or OS X device before you can use iCloud.com.
So for Linux and windows users, no, iWork doesn't work.
For what it's worth, I tried exactly the same process using Chrome instead of Firefox and it worked fine this time.
Okay, managed to get my AppleID password changed. I sign in to www.icloud.com and it says:
Set up ICloud on a device to use iCloud.com
Your Apple ID must be used to set up iCloud on an iOS or OS X device before you can use iCloud.com.
So I don't understand which collaboration features you're referring to. Where they "iCloud.com"? Or something else?
I tried to try it out but without much luck...
(1) Go to www.icloud.com
(2) Click "forgot my password"
(3) Enter my AppleID and click "Next"
(4) Select "answer security questions" and click Next
(5) Oops, it asks me to enter my AppleID again. I do so and click "Next"
(6) Again I select "answer security questions" and click Next
(7) It asks me my security question, and I answer, and click Next
(8) It asks me for a new password, which I type out twice, and click Next
(9) Oops! Session timed out! (after all of 40 seconds). Click Next
(10) Back to step 3, I enter my appleID and click "Next"
(11) Select "answer security questions" and click Next
(12) Session timed out! after all of 20 seconds. Click Next
(13) Enter my AppleID and click Next
(14) oops! session timed out, after 10 seconds this time.
Will try again later. "iforgot.apple.com"? - maybe YOU forgot too!
My wife has a macbook pro, while I have a Surface. She now often reaches her hand to the screen to try to swipe/scroll her screen, instinctively thinking it would work, then is a little disappointed when it doesn't.