The "hygene hypothesis" as it is often termed is not based on children's level of exposure to communicable disease. It is based on children's exposure to more benign but pervasive environmental contaminants.
Basically, the hypothesis is that the immune system is designed to be constantly fighting off the kind of relatively benign organisms (bacteria, virii, parasites, etc.) found all around us in dirt/soil/water/etc. There are antibodies and white blood cells constantly circulating throughout our system looking on the alert for this stuff. It might be that without enough contamination, these components are being replaced faster than they are being used up. Or (perhaps more likely) the immune system might rely on the correct balance of chemical messages being circulated as "stuff happens". If not enough "stuff happens", the immune system starts looking for things to attack and starts triggering various types of auto-immune diseases.
There's one fascinating study where they were able to reduce the symptoms of Chrohn's disease (colon inflamation thought to be auto-immune related) by introducing parasites to Chrohn's patients. (They used some kind of parasitic worms that had the gene for their toxin knocked out so they wouldn't make people very sick.)
The point is that the "hygene hypothesis" is not based on being exposed to xx more diseases, its about being exposed to a constant low-level of natural environmental contamination.
Now note that I was wrong about this, but here's what I meant...
Based on something that I read somewhere else (that turned out to be wrong), I thought that the only way to get the RAW files was to go into Aperture's data store and pull out the files you want based on the file names. The data store is a maze of files with all the file names based on what the camera names them (you know DC1323.CRW, or something like that), and then sorted into sub-folders based on date imported. So I thought that what you'd have to do was figure out which image in Aperture you wanted, write down the file name, and then go search through that giant list of files for DC1323.CRW, or whatever. That didn't seem like a particularly efficient workflow to me, and that's the comment I was making.
Again, I had incorrect information, but I wasn't contradicting myself. If I'm using iTunes to sort music, for example, I want to be able to just select the file and press play. I don't want to pick the music, then switch to the Finder and track down the correct file in order to play it.
I had not contradicted myself. If you are using a program to sort and pick out files, it seems sort of silly to then have to write down the file names and switch to the finder, then find those files from the long list in Aperture's directory.
Although I was not being inconsistent, I had received bad information. (Don't trust everything you read on the net.) Aperture has a perfectly useful feature letting you export the untouched RAW image. Not directly to Photoshop, though, and not containing any metadata you added in Aperture (keywords, dates, etc.).
Also, Photoshop can import RAW files. But the fact that Aperture exports crappy TIFF and PSD files to Photoshop makes it immaterial whether or not Photoshop is or is not capable of editing any other format. What it means is that Aperture quickly becomes a less useful tool if the "Edit in Photoshop" function is useless because of bad quality.
And as a sorting tool, bad image quality makes it hard to decide which images you want to use. Ideally you'd want to zoom in and see which image had better detail. Hard to do if the image quality is screwed up by a bad RAW converter.
Here's the actual problem with the export command. You get two choices, lossy file with your metadata attached or lossless file with the camera's metadata attached. Not as big a deal, but still makes "Aperture as sorting program only" a little problematic.
Also, how do you know which pictures are the best if Aperture is providing you with a bad rendering of the picture on-screen?
No, you claimed that's what Aperture does not do, and its pretty clear that aengbloom did not quite understand exactly what you were implying, since his response was that Aperture effectively re-imports the RAW file every time, which is different from writing out a new RAW file to disk.
No, Aperture does not recreate a RAW file with your changes.
And no, Aperture does not do anything that can't be done in Photoshop, using many more steps. In Photoshop you can always start over from the RAW file. But isn't Aperture's process a lot easier?
Here's the Aperture process for changing white balance:
1) Bring up the pallet. 2) Move the slider.
The image is recalculated on the fly from the original RAW file, including all other filters and adjustments that have been made.
Photoshop can get the same result, but its more steps. Also in Photoshop there would be a difference between adjustments that get made in Camera Raw and adjustment that get made in Photoshop itself. Its much less easy to go back and forth between those two types of adjustments in Photoshop.
So working directly with RAW files is far from "nothing more than marketspeak".
But its useless as a workflow tool if you import a RAW file, pick 10 images out of 100, choose the "work on this in Photoshop" command, and Photoshop is now working on the poor TIFF or PSD versions that Aperture makes from the RAW originals. It does not send RAW files directly to Photoshop (or anywhere else for that matter).
Basically, Aperture has non-destructive import, but it doesn't really have non-destructive output. (Although you can get to the original RAW files through the Finder, that seems like a poor workflow, don't you?)
Aperture imports your RAW files non-destructively. It does not, however, easily export your RAW files non-destructively. You can get to them, but you have to do it through the Finder, not within Aperture. So Aperture is useless as a proofing system if the "best 10" images that you export for your editor have quality issues due to Apertures low-quality RAW conversion.
Also Aperture is supposed to be a program that can do some basic clean-up edits for files -- balances, sharpness, red-eye, etc. Apparently many of these features work poorly. If its not supposed to be for editing, then why does it have editing features? It should have features that work well, or not have them at all.
The source is Apple's explanation of what it is doing.
What it allows Apple to do is go back to the RAW data and not rely solely on the rasterized data. For example, RAW rasterization relies on someone/something deciding what white balance to use. Once you've chosen a white balance, you lose some information in the rasterization process. With Aperture, if you change the white balance, the program can go back to the RAW data and recalculate the rasterization with the new white balance, and then re-apply whatever filters you've applied to the image.
Its really a slick idea, the only problem seems to be that their algorithms suck. And that's no small problem
The difference is that I am BellSouth's customer, not Yahoo. This is the equivalent of HBO paying a cable company not to carry all of the Showtime channels, and then telling me its good for me because of all the HBO channels I get.
"Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon."
You're missing the point. The problem isn't availability of water. The problem is getting it to the consumer. Its much cheaper to conserve water than build another aqueduct.
"Also, what effect will a more concentrated (less dilluted with water) waste have on the environment? Seems like a total no-flush solution would require an overall change in the entire waster-water-management system."
The main issue with waste-water treatment is the amount of water going through the system, not the concentration of waste within the water. Less water = don't have to expand the water purification plant.
The bottom line is that in most of the U.S. water conservation is about reducing the costs of distributing water and collecting sewage. It is dramatically cheaper to use less water than to expand the water/sewer systems. Municipalities (i.e. tax dollars) generally pay for the capital costs of expanding these facilities, therefore it is in all citizens financial interest to reduce the cost of such facilities.
Re:What was wrong with Azureus?
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Ah, so another question then comes to mind (since I know nothing about GCJ). Can the JVM be static linked into the binary, or does it require GCJ to be installed on any machine that runs the binary?
Thanks for the enlightenment.:)
Re:What was wrong with Azureus?
on
GCC 4.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Do you lose any functionality by compiling Java to machine code? Maybe not with Azureus, but in general don't some of Java's features preclude compiling directly to machine code (as opposed to JVM code)?
Clearly you could just avoid using those features, but I'm curious if you get "full-featured" Java when using the GCC Java compiler.
Certainly not true. There is no definition of religion that requires morality of any sort, and certainly not adherence to the morality described by any other religion. Religion also doesn't require logic, intelligence, or any other lack of stupidity.
Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Parts of eugenics are scientific -- you can certainly make the human race taller by culling all the short people. Other parts are unrelated to science -- choosing which traits are "better" for example. What does that have to do with how well science does or doesn't slough off dogmatism?
Scientists can be dogmatic and scientific institutions hijacked, but science contains something that religion does not, which makes it hard for dogmas and hijackings to continue. Science provides a framework for disproving incorrect theories and proving correct theories. Scientists dogmatically clung to the theory that stress caused ulcers until someone finally, and simply, proved that theory wrong. Hard to argue against bacterial cause of ulcers when patients are being cured right and left by antibiotics. Yes, there is a period when the dogma fights the new data, but eventually data will always beat dogma (or by definition it is not longer science).
Another example is Einstein's famous repudiation of quantum theory. He was not the only one bothered by the theory's random (and counter-intuitive) basis. But you know what, quantum theory accurately predicts and explains (how, not why) all observed results in its domain. While many wish there was a more straightforward theory and hope that string theory (or something like it) will provide a simpler framework, no physicist still denies the utility of quantum theory in describing natural phenomena.
Maybe I just don't have that good of a sense of humor, but why was my original post modded 2 and yours gets a 5? Is it just because you used "intelligent _____"?:)
Well, its still only a theory. There are other theories that are just as valid. I for one, still do not believe atomic bombs are atoms being split. It does not make sense to me that one something as perfect as an atom could ever be split. I believe that atomic blasts are God lighting his own farts. Or maybe just an alien lighting his own farts. (Maybe hedging the source of the farts will let me slip this theory into public schools.)
Um, yes they would have tried to stop them. They just finished a revolution overthrowing a government for various infractions, mostly of personal freedoms. The Articles of Confederation were unworkable and people were getting fed up with their new do-nothing government.
Also, the original constitution did not include anything about individualism, freedom of speech, or right to life and property. Those were included in the declaration of independence, a great document that carries some moral weight in constitutional debate, but not law. Those ideas were added to the constitution shortly thereafter.
I say this not to take anything away from the Founding Fathers, who were truly enlightened thinkers and truly believed a constitutional democracy could work, but lets keep the historical context in mind. Such context including the fact that local rule in the colonies had largely been democratic before the revolution, so it was ingrained in the social structure.
IMHO, all that is secondary to having an educated citizenry. 95% of stuff taught in school is non-controversial. Just about any math, all writing skills, almost all science, most of the history, and most of our literature are non-controversial. The fact that there is a small segment of what we teach that creates some controversy is no reason to abandon a system that, even if not the best in the world, has created the underpinnings for a surprisingly robust civic and economic life in the U.S. Point to a country that doesn't provide universal public education and I'll show you a country that lags the U.S. on every measure of standard of living -- economic opportunity, social equality, civic participation, personal freedoms, etc.
Anyway, it is not illegal to have a comparative religions class in a public school. The reason things like school prayer and creationism are not allowed in school is that they espouse specific religions. Even a non-denominational prayer espouses any religion which involves praying (not all religions do); creationism espouses any religion which elevates the idea of an omnipotent creator over darwinian natural selection as the origin of species (again, not all religions do).
To respond to a specific example of yours, it is perfectly legal and acceptable for a public school teacher to respond to "what is Easter", with "its the day Christians celebrate the resurrection of their savior". It is not acceptable to respond with "its the day we celebrate the resurrection of our savior". I am a non-Christian and, trust me, there is a huge difference between those two statements.
Awesome news. I look forward to the increasing trade deficit resulating as a direct consequence of largely U.S.-based programmers giving away their efforts for free. Hooray for open source.
Slashdot Mirror
The "hygene hypothesis" as it is often termed is not based on children's level of exposure to communicable disease. It is based on children's exposure to more benign but pervasive environmental contaminants.
Basically, the hypothesis is that the immune system is designed to be constantly fighting off the kind of relatively benign organisms (bacteria, virii, parasites, etc.) found all around us in dirt/soil/water/etc. There are antibodies and white blood cells constantly circulating throughout our system looking on the alert for this stuff. It might be that without enough contamination, these components are being replaced faster than they are being used up. Or (perhaps more likely) the immune system might rely on the correct balance of chemical messages being circulated as "stuff happens". If not enough "stuff happens", the immune system starts looking for things to attack and starts triggering various types of auto-immune diseases.
There's one fascinating study where they were able to reduce the symptoms of Chrohn's disease (colon inflamation thought to be auto-immune related) by introducing parasites to Chrohn's patients. (They used some kind of parasitic worms that had the gene for their toxin knocked out so they wouldn't make people very sick.)
The point is that the "hygene hypothesis" is not based on being exposed to xx more diseases, its about being exposed to a constant low-level of natural environmental contamination.
Now note that I was wrong about this, but here's what I meant ...
Based on something that I read somewhere else (that turned out to be wrong), I thought that the only way to get the RAW files was to go into Aperture's data store and pull out the files you want based on the file names. The data store is a maze of files with all the file names based on what the camera names them (you know DC1323.CRW, or something like that), and then sorted into sub-folders based on date imported. So I thought that what you'd have to do was figure out which image in Aperture you wanted, write down the file name, and then go search through that giant list of files for DC1323.CRW, or whatever. That didn't seem like a particularly efficient workflow to me, and that's the comment I was making.
Again, I had incorrect information, but I wasn't contradicting myself. If I'm using iTunes to sort music, for example, I want to be able to just select the file and press play. I don't want to pick the music, then switch to the Finder and track down the correct file in order to play it.
I had not contradicted myself. If you are using a program to sort and pick out files, it seems sort of silly to then have to write down the file names and switch to the finder, then find those files from the long list in Aperture's directory.
Although I was not being inconsistent, I had received bad information. (Don't trust everything you read on the net.) Aperture has a perfectly useful feature letting you export the untouched RAW image. Not directly to Photoshop, though, and not containing any metadata you added in Aperture (keywords, dates, etc.).
Also, Photoshop can import RAW files. But the fact that Aperture exports crappy TIFF and PSD files to Photoshop makes it immaterial whether or not Photoshop is or is not capable of editing any other format. What it means is that Aperture quickly becomes a less useful tool if the "Edit in Photoshop" function is useless because of bad quality.
And as a sorting tool, bad image quality makes it hard to decide which images you want to use. Ideally you'd want to zoom in and see which image had better detail. Hard to do if the image quality is screwed up by a bad RAW converter.
You're right, I misunderstood something I read.
Here's the actual problem with the export command. You get two choices, lossy file with your metadata attached or lossless file with the camera's metadata attached. Not as big a deal, but still makes "Aperture as sorting program only" a little problematic.
Also, how do you know which pictures are the best if Aperture is providing you with a bad rendering of the picture on-screen?
No, you claimed that's what Aperture does not do, and its pretty clear that aengbloom did not quite understand exactly what you were implying, since his response was that Aperture effectively re-imports the RAW file every time, which is different from writing out a new RAW file to disk.
No, Aperture does not recreate a RAW file with your changes.
And no, Aperture does not do anything that can't be done in Photoshop, using many more steps. In Photoshop you can always start over from the RAW file. But isn't Aperture's process a lot easier?
Here's the Aperture process for changing white balance:
1) Bring up the pallet.
2) Move the slider.
The image is recalculated on the fly from the original RAW file, including all other filters and adjustments that have been made.
Photoshop can get the same result, but its more steps. Also in Photoshop there would be a difference between adjustments that get made in Camera Raw and adjustment that get made in Photoshop itself. Its much less easy to go back and forth between those two types of adjustments in Photoshop.
So working directly with RAW files is far from "nothing more than marketspeak".
But its useless as a workflow tool if you import a RAW file, pick 10 images out of 100, choose the "work on this in Photoshop" command, and Photoshop is now working on the poor TIFF or PSD versions that Aperture makes from the RAW originals. It does not send RAW files directly to Photoshop (or anywhere else for that matter).
Basically, Aperture has non-destructive import, but it doesn't really have non-destructive output. (Although you can get to the original RAW files through the Finder, that seems like a poor workflow, don't you?)
Aperture imports your RAW files non-destructively. It does not, however, easily export your RAW files non-destructively. You can get to them, but you have to do it through the Finder, not within Aperture. So Aperture is useless as a proofing system if the "best 10" images that you export for your editor have quality issues due to Apertures low-quality RAW conversion.
Also Aperture is supposed to be a program that can do some basic clean-up edits for files -- balances, sharpness, red-eye, etc. Apparently many of these features work poorly. If its not supposed to be for editing, then why does it have editing features? It should have features that work well, or not have them at all.
The source is Apple's explanation of what it is doing.
What it allows Apple to do is go back to the RAW data and not rely solely on the rasterized data. For example, RAW rasterization relies on someone/something deciding what white balance to use. Once you've chosen a white balance, you lose some information in the rasterization process. With Aperture, if you change the white balance, the program can go back to the RAW data and recalculate the rasterization with the new white balance, and then re-apply whatever filters you've applied to the image.
Its really a slick idea, the only problem seems to be that their algorithms suck. And that's no small problem
The difference is that I am BellSouth's customer, not Yahoo. This is the equivalent of HBO paying a cable company not to carry all of the Showtime channels, and then telling me its good for me because of all the HBO channels I get.
"Fresh water is cheap and plentiful in the majority of the U.S. and that's not about to change any time soon."
You're missing the point. The problem isn't availability of water. The problem is getting it to the consumer. Its much cheaper to conserve water than build another aqueduct.
"Also, what effect will a more concentrated (less dilluted with water) waste have on the environment? Seems like a total no-flush solution would require an overall change in the entire waster-water-management system."
The main issue with waste-water treatment is the amount of water going through the system, not the concentration of waste within the water. Less water = don't have to expand the water purification plant.
The bottom line is that in most of the U.S. water conservation is about reducing the costs of distributing water and collecting sewage. It is dramatically cheaper to use less water than to expand the water/sewer systems. Municipalities (i.e. tax dollars) generally pay for the capital costs of expanding these facilities, therefore it is in all citizens financial interest to reduce the cost of such facilities.
There's a joke in there somewhere. :)
Ah, so another question then comes to mind (since I know nothing about GCJ). Can the JVM be static linked into the binary, or does it require GCJ to be installed on any machine that runs the binary?
:)
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Do you lose any functionality by compiling Java to machine code? Maybe not with Azureus, but in general don't some of Java's features preclude compiling directly to machine code (as opposed to JVM code)?
Clearly you could just avoid using those features, but I'm curious if you get "full-featured" Java when using the GCC Java compiler.
Certainly not true. There is no definition of religion that requires morality of any sort, and certainly not adherence to the morality described by any other religion. Religion also doesn't require logic, intelligence, or any other lack of stupidity.
Your last sentence makes no sense to me. Parts of eugenics are scientific -- you can certainly make the human race taller by culling all the short people. Other parts are unrelated to science -- choosing which traits are "better" for example. What does that have to do with how well science does or doesn't slough off dogmatism?
Scientists can be dogmatic and scientific institutions hijacked, but science contains something that religion does not, which makes it hard for dogmas and hijackings to continue. Science provides a framework for disproving incorrect theories and proving correct theories. Scientists dogmatically clung to the theory that stress caused ulcers until someone finally, and simply, proved that theory wrong. Hard to argue against bacterial cause of ulcers when patients are being cured right and left by antibiotics. Yes, there is a period when the dogma fights the new data, but eventually data will always beat dogma (or by definition it is not longer science).
Another example is Einstein's famous repudiation of quantum theory. He was not the only one bothered by the theory's random (and counter-intuitive) basis. But you know what, quantum theory accurately predicts and explains (how, not why) all observed results in its domain. While many wish there was a more straightforward theory and hope that string theory (or something like it) will provide a simpler framework, no physicist still denies the utility of quantum theory in describing natural phenomena.
Maybe I just don't have that good of a sense of humor, but why was my original post modded 2 and yours gets a 5? Is it just because you used "intelligent _____"? :)
There isn't really agreement among historians on the cause of the fire.
Well, its still only a theory. There are other theories that are just as valid. I for one, still do not believe atomic bombs are atoms being split. It does not make sense to me that one something as perfect as an atom could ever be split. I believe that atomic blasts are God lighting his own farts. Or maybe just an alien lighting his own farts. (Maybe hedging the source of the farts will let me slip this theory into public schools.)
Fair enough.
There's already enough food in the world for everybody. The problem is getting it to them.
"Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
"I think I am, Brain, but wherever are we going to find cool whip and rubber shorts at this hour?"
Um, yes they would have tried to stop them. They just finished a revolution overthrowing a government for various infractions, mostly of personal freedoms. The Articles of Confederation were unworkable and people were getting fed up with their new do-nothing government.
Also, the original constitution did not include anything about individualism, freedom of speech, or right to life and property. Those were included in the declaration of independence, a great document that carries some moral weight in constitutional debate, but not law. Those ideas were added to the constitution shortly thereafter.
I say this not to take anything away from the Founding Fathers, who were truly enlightened thinkers and truly believed a constitutional democracy could work, but lets keep the historical context in mind. Such context including the fact that local rule in the colonies had largely been democratic before the revolution, so it was ingrained in the social structure.
IMHO, all that is secondary to having an educated citizenry. 95% of stuff taught in school is non-controversial. Just about any math, all writing skills, almost all science, most of the history, and most of our literature are non-controversial. The fact that there is a small segment of what we teach that creates some controversy is no reason to abandon a system that, even if not the best in the world, has created the underpinnings for a surprisingly robust civic and economic life in the U.S. Point to a country that doesn't provide universal public education and I'll show you a country that lags the U.S. on every measure of standard of living -- economic opportunity, social equality, civic participation, personal freedoms, etc.
Anyway, it is not illegal to have a comparative religions class in a public school. The reason things like school prayer and creationism are not allowed in school is that they espouse specific religions. Even a non-denominational prayer espouses any religion which involves praying (not all religions do); creationism espouses any religion which elevates the idea of an omnipotent creator over darwinian natural selection as the origin of species (again, not all religions do).
To respond to a specific example of yours, it is perfectly legal and acceptable for a public school teacher to respond to "what is Easter", with "its the day Christians celebrate the resurrection of their savior". It is not acceptable to respond with "its the day we celebrate the resurrection of our savior". I am a non-Christian and, trust me, there is a huge difference between those two statements.
Awesome news. I look forward to the increasing trade deficit resulating as a direct consequence of largely U.S.-based programmers giving away their efforts for free. Hooray for open source.
The link you gave specifically says that Brethren is the plural of Brother