how is "same name and birthdate" considered to be "vague criteria"?
It is not uncommon to have many instances of multiple voters with the same first and last name and date of birth within a state wide population. So comparing records nationwide is sure to generate many false positives. And if the comparison is as simplistic as advertised, and does not account for a voter's status in either jurisdiction, you will likely have many cases where the voter is the same person and their status may not be eligible for their previous address (e.g. status may be "moved from jurisdiction" in Ohio or some other form of "no contact" status that precedes being deleted from the voter rolls), but the person would still be removed in Indiana per the article because they matched a record in a different system. Many systems keep voter records for years, so if the program doesn't account for status at all they are literally doing it wrong.
lets see these cars navigate a european or far eastern city where its very hard
Why start with that when there are much easier use cases? To me, that seems kind of like many of the arguments I used to see against EVs: "I drive over 100 miles a day" or "I frequently take long trips". So? There are plenty of other use cases where they work great. Same thing with autonomous vehicles. They don't have to solve every edge case from day one, just the most common circumstances.
Most likely, the first deployment of fully autonomous vehicles on public roads will be in selected areas, perhaps geo-fenced (particularly if they belong to a service provider like Uber or Amazon), and might have exceptions to the allowed operating conditions. But that still satisfies the statement "It will take no more than 4 years to have fully autonomous cars on the road" if they are deployed on public roads within that time frame.
Number two is significantly more expensive in dollars
Not necessarily. It depends on what you need. Private offices for dozens of workers might be more costly, but in that case you are paying for a turnkey, all inclusive(ish) solution and flexibility (co-working spaces are typically rented monthly or shorter terms vs. annual or multi-year leases for traditional space).
But if you only have a few people, or just need desks (vs. private offices), you may come out cheaper in a co-working space. At the bottom end, for businesses that need little space, a co-work could be much more economical. Especially when you consider that in a traditional lease you may also have to pay for utilities (power/water if often included, but might not be, and internet service usually will not be), rent or buy furniture, and so forth.
If you use Windows, I like ninite.com as a starting point. Strips out the opt-out extras (toolbars, junkware) and gives one installer for as many of their supported programs as you want to include. Also, wikipedia has a decent list of source repositories. But as with anything, when downloading, caveat emptor.
Wait. I thought it was simple? Or maybe accurately modelling the energy balance of complex organisms is too complex to represent with three variables? Going back to something you said before:
People work hard to make it seem complicated and mysterious so that they have an excuse that they can tell themselves.
It think it is more the opposite. People (like you) try to make it seem much less complicated than it actually is so they can look down on and/or make fun of fat people.
You do understand that there's a continuum between eating more that you need and becoming fat and not eating enough and starving to death, right?
Yes. You postulated that:
Calories In > Calories Out + Calories Burned
explains the weight gain that has been observed in several species over the last several decades. In the example I cited, Calories In and Calories Burned are stable over time, but body weight is not. Thus, "Calories Out" is the only variable left in your formula and must therefore be responsible for the increasing body weight of the lab animals in question. I asked you to explain what it represents and why it has changed over time. If it's "pretty goddamned simple", it should be no problem for you to explain it.
More detail. Per the quote, calories in and calories burned are not changing, which implies that "calories out" is decreasing. What is "calories out" and why is it going down?
Excellent. Then please explain the similar rise in body weight of lab animals, given that:
"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."
"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."
Yes. Size and gestational age are different categories. But either could be considered a measure of "premature-ness". And pre and post 24 weeks could be considered different categories. The point was, a doctor who "had never known a baby born as prematurely as Lexi survive" hopefully is not the neonatalogist. I guess 24 weeks is still generally considered the threshold, as it was over a decade ago. But as I understand it, that threshold is being pushed more and more. So while younger preemies (who survive) are less common, almost any medical professional should be aware that 26 weeks is not a particularly "rare outlier" as far as preterm babies go.
These doctors need to get out more if they are unfamiliar with more premature babies surviving. Lots of 22-25 week gestation babies (that's 15-18 weeks premature) survive, with the record being 21 weeks 5 days gestation. In terms of size, the baby in the article is fairly small at 14 ounces. But the record in that category is 8.6 ounces, with a few other cases under 10, including the previous record holder.
A powerful graphics suite does not make one a skilled graphic designer. Look at it from the other side: now you don't need to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on a formal education to find out if you have what it takes to be a designer.
If this continues, you will not see a single person their [sic] who has a degree above a high school diploma.
If that is true, then all it means is that training beyond a HS diploma does not add value to a designer's work.
There will always be people and/or companies that demand top quality design. So the best designers will always have work. It is the Ok to good designers who have to worry as the mass of market entrants start cranking out work that is "good enough".
Today, a hobbyist could easily build an autonomous surveillance robot the size of a small rodent that has everything it needs to capture sound and audio and either store the resulting feed or stream it to a server somewhere. In 20 more years, how much smaller than "rodent" do you think that robot could be?
Interesting idea, although entirely irrelevant to the discussion. 20 years ago, a hobbyist could easily install hidden cameras throughout your home, office, gym locker room, wherever. The fact that the technology was available didn't make it legal then, doesn't make it legal now, and won't make it legal in the future.
It is not the technology you should be worried about, it is the erosion of rights against unlawful search (including surveillance) and seizure you need to watch out for.
Wait, who's guilty of false equivalence? Because looking back over this thread, it seems like somehow you are going from a few stats above about gays and creationism to public flogging for viewing bikini pictures at work. Personally, I don't see how you connect the dots between the two. And yes, I did check out many links from the google searches you suggested -- plenty of name-calling, but not much beyond that.
Agreed. I think eventually, we will see phones/pocket-sized devices with a "pico" projector and one of these built in. And as storage gets smaller and chips get more powerful, we will end up with an all-in-one device that can replace laptops/netbooks as well. We already have convergence of phone, digital camera, video camera, PDA, MP3 player, GPS, etc... One of the things that makes the iPad attractive (YMMV) is the larger screen. A pico projector can provide that in a smaller device.
This is the big problem with corn ethanol - it is energy negative!
Probably not. I suppose you could say it is open to debate, but the consensus seems to be for positive energy output with current methods. Also perhaps worth noting is that the parent commented on biofuels in general, whereas you focused in on one particular biofuel from a source that happens to be a bad idea pretty much all the way around. I can see the rationale for using surplus corn for ethanol if you have to use it (the surplus corn). But you're probably better off storing it until pricing/supply supports using it as some form of food or feed.
Better methods are coming along, though. Cellulosic ethanol seems promising since it can use non-food feedstock, including existing agricultural waste streams or switchgrass, kudzu or other fast-growing non-commercial plants. Biodiesel from jatropha or other non-food crops are still a possibility, especially where small scale production can work, but algae and pond scum have several advantages over plant crops, and there are companies working on commercial scale implementations now. There is also biodiesel from waste vegetable oil -- either processed, or just filtered and used as-is in slightly modded diesels. And then there is thermal deploymerization of agricultural waste into diesel/fuel oil, which has been going on commercially for a few years now.
Any or all of these can fit into our existing infrastructure, so as petroleum hydrocarbons become more expensive (and/or tech improves for the alternatives), they'll start to become players in the market.
That gets close, but based on Greenbaum's own explanation, there was no good faith belief of necessity "to protect against misuse or unauthorized use of our web sites". He did it: to teach the guy a lesson (it was a "teachable moment", in his words), because the poster meant to post it (he tried a second time, thus not an accident or momentary lapse of judgment), and because "it was easy". He even outlines other (better, IMO) steps he could have taken. But for the above reasons, he chose to reveal the user's info. Those reasons do not fit within the parameters set forth in the privacy policy, even as vague/loose/permissive as the policy is. "It's easier" is obviously not the same as "necessary".
I didn't read the whole TOS, but it seems they may be ok with respect to that document. But it doesn't change the fact that they violated the privacy policy.
Nope. Wrong. Aside from violating their own privacy policy, he (Greenbaum, the newspaper guy) went counter to the idea of anonymous commenting. If you want to be able to call someone out, don't allow anonymous posting. If an anonymous poster is being a nuisance (and one re-post probably should not qualify -- the poster could have assumed transmission error or some such) block his IP address.
Yeah I mean, really, don't we want to do the opposite? Logically, isn't someone with an "aggression gene" probably going to be more likely to be a repeat offender?
To quote from his original article "women's participation in FOSS development is over seventeen times lower than it is in proprietary software development." If that doesn't point to some systematic problem I don't know what does.
It does if you're comparing apples to apples. On the other hand, isn't FOSS development fundamentally different from proprietary development in many ways? I'd also like to know what "participation" means. Does it include sales? Marketing? Focus groups? project management? Certainly there are FOSS projects that have all those elements and proprietary shops that don't, but my anecdotal experience leads me to believe that those things tend to be thin for FOSS and are often well funded in companies making proprietary software.
I'm not saying there is no sexism, but the evidence offered seems rather thin -- some vague numbers and a couple of anecdotes. If this is a real problem, make a better case than that.
It depends. It could be a good thing. Or if they use an overly broad interpretation of what might indicate virus or botnet activity, I could see it becoming a tool to shut down customers who just use a lot of bandwidth.
Plus, even if Comcast's intentions are good, it seems like a great way (for others) to phish. Think about it. Users are not used to seeing notices from comcast, but maybe they've heard about this initiative. So they get a pop-up saying "Comcast service notice. Your PC may be infected. Click here to go to our Anitvirus center". Then the user helpfully installs everything the site tells him to. How about an app that blocks the legitimate notices you're now getting from Comcast?
Even the books about robots are, fundamentally, about people.
Well, it depends on what you mean by people. If you mean any humans or anthropomorphized non-human characters, then sure, all stories are about people.
Slashdot Mirror
how is "same name and birthdate" considered to be "vague criteria"?
It is not uncommon to have many instances of multiple voters with the same first and last name and date of birth within a state wide population. So comparing records nationwide is sure to generate many false positives. And if the comparison is as simplistic as advertised, and does not account for a voter's status in either jurisdiction, you will likely have many cases where the voter is the same person and their status may not be eligible for their previous address (e.g. status may be "moved from jurisdiction" in Ohio or some other form of "no contact" status that precedes being deleted from the voter rolls), but the person would still be removed in Indiana per the article because they matched a record in a different system. Many systems keep voter records for years, so if the program doesn't account for status at all they are literally doing it wrong.
lets see these cars navigate a european or far eastern city where its very hard
Why start with that when there are much easier use cases? To me, that seems kind of like many of the arguments I used to see against EVs: "I drive over 100 miles a day" or "I frequently take long trips". So? There are plenty of other use cases where they work great. Same thing with autonomous vehicles. They don't have to solve every edge case from day one, just the most common circumstances.
Most likely, the first deployment of fully autonomous vehicles on public roads will be in selected areas, perhaps geo-fenced (particularly if they belong to a service provider like Uber or Amazon), and might have exceptions to the allowed operating conditions. But that still satisfies the statement "It will take no more than 4 years to have fully autonomous cars on the road" if they are deployed on public roads within that time frame.
Number two is significantly more expensive in dollars
Not necessarily. It depends on what you need. Private offices for dozens of workers might be more costly, but in that case you are paying for a turnkey, all inclusive(ish) solution and flexibility (co-working spaces are typically rented monthly or shorter terms vs. annual or multi-year leases for traditional space).
But if you only have a few people, or just need desks (vs. private offices), you may come out cheaper in a co-working space. At the bottom end, for businesses that need little space, a co-work could be much more economical. Especially when you consider that in a traditional lease you may also have to pay for utilities (power/water if often included, but might not be, and internet service usually will not be), rent or buy furniture, and so forth.
If you use Windows, I like ninite.com as a starting point. Strips out the opt-out extras (toolbars, junkware) and gives one installer for as many of their supported programs as you want to include. Also, wikipedia has a decent list of source repositories. But as with anything, when downloading, caveat emptor.
I have no idea.
Wait. I thought it was simple? Or maybe accurately modelling the energy balance of complex organisms is too complex to represent with three variables? Going back to something you said before:
People work hard to make it seem complicated and mysterious so that they have an excuse that they can tell themselves.
It think it is more the opposite. People (like you) try to make it seem much less complicated than it actually is so they can look down on and/or make fun of fat people.
You do understand that there's a continuum between eating more that you need and becoming fat and not eating enough and starving to death, right?
Yes. You postulated that:
Calories In > Calories Out + Calories Burned
explains the weight gain that has been observed in several species over the last several decades. In the example I cited, Calories In and Calories Burned are stable over time, but body weight is not. Thus, "Calories Out" is the only variable left in your formula and must therefore be responsible for the increasing body weight of the lab animals in question. I asked you to explain what it represents and why it has changed over time. If it's "pretty goddamned simple", it should be no problem for you to explain it.
More detail. Per the quote, calories in and calories burned are not changing, which implies that "calories out" is decreasing. What is "calories out" and why is it going down?
Excellent. Then please explain the similar rise in body weight of lab animals, given that:
"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."
How does that explain the lab animals? From TFA:
"In fact, lab animals’ lives are so precisely watched and measured that the researchers can rule out accidental human influence: records show those creatures gained weight over decades without any significant change in their diet or activities."
Yes. Size and gestational age are different categories. But either could be considered a measure of "premature-ness". And pre and post 24 weeks could be considered different categories. The point was, a doctor who "had never known a baby born as prematurely as Lexi survive" hopefully is not the neonatalogist. I guess 24 weeks is still generally considered the threshold, as it was over a decade ago. But as I understand it, that threshold is being pushed more and more. So while younger preemies (who survive) are less common, almost any medical professional should be aware that 26 weeks is not a particularly "rare outlier" as far as preterm babies go.
These doctors need to get out more if they are unfamiliar with more premature babies surviving. Lots of 22-25 week gestation babies (that's 15-18 weeks premature) survive, with the record being 21 weeks 5 days gestation. In terms of size, the baby in the article is fairly small at 14 ounces. But the record in that category is 8.6 ounces, with a few other cases under 10, including the previous record holder.
A powerful graphics suite does not make one a skilled graphic designer. Look at it from the other side: now you don't need to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars on a formal education to find out if you have what it takes to be a designer.
If that is true, then all it means is that training beyond a HS diploma does not add value to a designer's work.
There will always be people and/or companies that demand top quality design. So the best designers will always have work. It is the Ok to good designers who have to worry as the mass of market entrants start cranking out work that is "good enough".
Interesting idea, although entirely irrelevant to the discussion. 20 years ago, a hobbyist could easily install hidden cameras throughout your home, office, gym locker room, wherever. The fact that the technology was available didn't make it legal then, doesn't make it legal now, and won't make it legal in the future.
It is not the technology you should be worried about, it is the erosion of rights against unlawful search (including surveillance) and seizure you need to watch out for.
Wait, who's guilty of false equivalence? Because looking back over this thread, it seems like somehow you are going from a few stats above about gays and creationism to public flogging for viewing bikini pictures at work. Personally, I don't see how you connect the dots between the two. And yes, I did check out many links from the google searches you suggested -- plenty of name-calling, but not much beyond that.
Agreed. I think eventually, we will see phones/pocket-sized devices with a "pico" projector and one of these built in. And as storage gets smaller and chips get more powerful, we will end up with an all-in-one device that can replace laptops/netbooks as well. We already have convergence of phone, digital camera, video camera, PDA, MP3 player, GPS, etc... One of the things that makes the iPad attractive (YMMV) is the larger screen. A pico projector can provide that in a smaller device.
Probably not. I suppose you could say it is open to debate, but the consensus seems to be for positive energy output with current methods. Also perhaps worth noting is that the parent commented on biofuels in general, whereas you focused in on one particular biofuel from a source that happens to be a bad idea pretty much all the way around. I can see the rationale for using surplus corn for ethanol if you have to use it (the surplus corn). But you're probably better off storing it until pricing/supply supports using it as some form of food or feed.
Better methods are coming along, though. Cellulosic ethanol seems promising since it can use non-food feedstock, including existing agricultural waste streams or switchgrass, kudzu or other fast-growing non-commercial plants. Biodiesel from jatropha or other non-food crops are still a possibility, especially where small scale production can work, but algae and pond scum have several advantages over plant crops, and there are companies working on commercial scale implementations now. There is also biodiesel from waste vegetable oil -- either processed, or just filtered and used as-is in slightly modded diesels. And then there is thermal deploymerization of agricultural waste into diesel/fuel oil, which has been going on commercially for a few years now.
Any or all of these can fit into our existing infrastructure, so as petroleum hydrocarbons become more expensive (and/or tech improves for the alternatives), they'll start to become players in the market.
This one is even better.
That gets close, but based on Greenbaum's own explanation, there was no good faith belief of necessity "to protect against misuse or unauthorized use of our web sites". He did it: to teach the guy a lesson (it was a "teachable moment", in his words), because the poster meant to post it (he tried a second time, thus not an accident or momentary lapse of judgment), and because "it was easy". He even outlines other (better, IMO) steps he could have taken. But for the above reasons, he chose to reveal the user's info. Those reasons do not fit within the parameters set forth in the privacy policy, even as vague/loose/permissive as the policy is. "It's easier" is obviously not the same as "necessary".
I didn't read the whole TOS, but it seems they may be ok with respect to that document. But it doesn't change the fact that they violated the privacy policy.
Nope. Wrong. Aside from violating their own privacy policy, he (Greenbaum, the newspaper guy) went counter to the idea of anonymous commenting. If you want to be able to call someone out, don't allow anonymous posting. If an anonymous poster is being a nuisance (and one re-post probably should not qualify -- the poster could have assumed transmission error or some such) block his IP address.
Yeah I mean, really, don't we want to do the opposite? Logically, isn't someone with an "aggression gene" probably going to be more likely to be a repeat offender?
To quote from his original article "women's participation in FOSS development is over seventeen times lower than it is in proprietary software development." If that doesn't point to some systematic problem I don't know what does.
It does if you're comparing apples to apples. On the other hand, isn't FOSS development fundamentally different from proprietary development in many ways? I'd also like to know what "participation" means. Does it include sales? Marketing? Focus groups? project management? Certainly there are FOSS projects that have all those elements and proprietary shops that don't, but my anecdotal experience leads me to believe that those things tend to be thin for FOSS and are often well funded in companies making proprietary software.
I'm not saying there is no sexism, but the evidence offered seems rather thin -- some vague numbers and a couple of anecdotes. If this is a real problem, make a better case than that.
It depends. It could be a good thing. Or if they use an overly broad interpretation of what might indicate virus or botnet activity, I could see it becoming a tool to shut down customers who just use a lot of bandwidth.
Plus, even if Comcast's intentions are good, it seems like a great way (for others) to phish. Think about it. Users are not used to seeing notices from comcast, but maybe they've heard about this initiative. So they get a pop-up saying "Comcast service notice. Your PC may be infected. Click here to go to our Anitvirus center". Then the user helpfully installs everything the site tells him to. How about an app that blocks the legitimate notices you're now getting from Comcast?
the problem is that Apple doesn't make CHEAP computers like $300 netbooks
Sure they do, sort of
Even the books about robots are, fundamentally, about people.
Well, it depends on what you mean by people. If you mean any humans or anthropomorphized non-human characters, then sure, all stories are about people.
Unless it's about robots.