Wouldn't surprise me. There was an article on Slate about scentific research on whether being spayed/neuered affects animals' happiness.
One of the happiness measurement tests on mice is to hold it by the end of its tail and measure how long it takes to stop squirming. (The happier they are, the longer before they give up.)
Now, I don't know the net impact that neutering has on a pet's happiness... but I'm pretty sure they don't like being held by their tails until they give up...
Agreed. The most aggravating part is that neither of them even have an option where they won't even try to make the delivery, but will just inform you when it's reached the nearest depot. And for *both* of them, you still have to go through a human to get them to hold it at the depot rather than re-attempt delivery. WTF?
Anyone with a decent understanding of scientific method and the ability to read research papers is fully qualified to make judgements about the drugs they should take.
Right, but doctors don't keep up with that stuff, as they should, necessitating the advertising expenditures to get new drugs noticed, whether by alerting the doctors or getting their patients to do so.
You acknowledge this widespead irresponsibility on the part of doctors in your next paragraph.
I am not a physicist but I would probably try to explain it this way: Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something. We can call its most basic unit to be a "bit" but I'm not aware of any really solid equivalences between bits and energy. But if you knew this relationship, you could rewrite a lot of physics with the "bit" as one of the fundamental units of physics and get rid of -- say -- energy.
Not exactly what you were looking for, but a "bit" is equal to some number of Joules per Kelvin (the SI units for entropy). Both of them are measures of the degrees of freedom of a system. (Specifically, its logarithm.)
If your hard drive has a capacity of n bits, then it has n "binary degrees of freedom" (permitting it to be in one of 2^n possible distinct states).
Relatedly, temperature is a measure of energy per effective degree of freedom. So, crank out the units in the measure "Joules per Kelvin": it's energy per (energy per degree of freedom), which reduces to degrees of freedom.
2) Before deplaning, slip it behind the magazines in the pouch behind one of the seats, so it doesn't get noticed when they sweep the plane between flights.
3) Have the phone set on airplane mode and programmed to overload the battery in ~3 hours.
4) Assuming someone hasn't found the phone on the next flight, it catches on fire and spreads to the stack of magazines.
Solomon's solution would be give one of them the "Mer", and the other one "ck", and then instantly void the deal and give it to whoever doesn't want to see the name split.
Oh, the scientists blamed the damage on non-thermal effects! Gosh, I guess that settles it, then!
Remember, budding young scientsts, if someone tries to refute your conclusion by pointing to confounding factor X, all you have to do is "blame non-X"! Problem solved! No need for that fancy shmancy "control group" business. Just BLAME something else!
(Never mind that they didn't test a non-wifi laptop to see if a non-wifi laptop aspect -- like heat -- could have been responsible for these effects...)
We are actively changing the fitness function for diseases to include "must be resistant to antibiotics, must be resistant to antivirals, must be able to infect even immunised people, etc", this will inevitably lead to bugs that fulfil these criteria... eventually.
I'm no expert on immunology, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow. There could be several elements of an ecosystem that affect a virus or bacteria's survivability. When a vaccine culls the system of those vulnerable to element X, and the remaining population is immune to X, it could be that in gaining that resistance, it became newly vulnerable to Y, which is exploited on the next round of vaccines.
So while you could end up one day with a virus that is immune to (pretty much) everything, you could also indefinitely persist in a kind of whack-a-mole cycle where each new vaccine introduces a new resistance *and* a new vulnerability, either of which could have been present (as a resistance or vulnerability) in a previous iteration.
More formally, if there are ecosystem elements A through E and we denote a given disease as [resistances]/[immunities], the generations might go like this:
1) A/BCDE -> vaccine exploits E 2) AE/BCD -> vaccine exploits C 3) ACE/BD -> vaccine exploits B 4) BCE/AD -> vaccine exploits A 5) ABC/DE -> vaccine exploits D 6) BDC/AE... and so on.
Someone correct me if I'm completely out of left field on this.
Your missing the essential point: how much "net gain of output or resources" results from a purchase itself depends on how much people actually value what they bought. If you *make* people buy something they hate, for example, you shouldn't treat that as having the same economic benefit as an ordinary voluntary purchase.
The hole-digging/refilling thing is just an extreme example to make the point; the phenomenon exists to some extent with all policies of the type you advocated: if people buy something they *wouldn't have otherwise wanted to buy* (perhaps because they believe the economic theories you're endorsing), you can't fully count the cash value of the purchase as an economic benefit, for the same reason you shouldn't count at all the economic benefit of hole-dig/refilling.
In short: spending is not good. Good spending is good. Spending solely to "help the economy" (rather than because you actually *want* the stuff) is not good, and it props up unsustainable enterprises. And it waste resources in exactly the same sense that paying people to dig/refill holes.
"The attackers were not successful" -> They got the password hashes.
"The attackers were not able to gain access to sensitive data" --> They got the password hashes plus a bunch of private stuff we stored in cleartext because we're idiots.
"We have no reason to believe the attackers compromised sensitive data." --> They got everything.
LOL! Good catch, I didn't know what I was thinking there. On further reflection, I think osteosaurus would be a great alternate name for a bone dragon.
I was thinking the same thing, but there's a big difference between saying, "Overpriced CorporoBottled Water (tm) can prevent dehydration" vs saying "Water prevents dehydration". The former artificially claims some superpower in the product and implies that others lacking it, while the latter just says that water in general prevents dehydration.
Considering that water is one of the more effective drinks to that end, and it doesn't imply that this product is better than other kinds of water, it does seem a bit unreasonable to ban the claim. Indeed, it's this kind of tedium that makes them (in the US) have to add a pointless disclaimer "This statement not evaluated by the FDA; this product not intended to treat, diagnose..." labels on any widely-accepted claim from the medical literature like, "Diets high in calcium have been shown to reduce the risk of osteosaurus."
I completely understand the need to prevent this kind of misleading product claim though.
That's an eminently reasonable point, but it gets undermined when you advocate that kind of treatment for yourself, which I think the OWSers are doing.
Slashdot Mirror
Paranoid much?
How do you know that the who-could-fall-for-this ads in Time magazine aren't code for sleeper agents?
Wouldn't surprise me. There was an article on Slate about scentific research on whether being spayed/neuered affects animals' happiness.
One of the happiness measurement tests on mice is to hold it by the end of its tail and measure how long it takes to stop squirming. (The happier they are, the longer before they give up.)
Now, I don't know the net impact that neutering has on a pet's happiness ... but I'm pretty sure they don't like being held by their tails until they give up...
And none of them give you the option to buy the phone at full cost in return for lower payments for service.
Huh, wuzzat? I couldn't hear you over the sound of all the assholes driving Harleys and jacked-up monster pick-up trucks.
It is very difficult to make a man understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
Could you post the psychological research backing up this claim?
Agreed. The most aggravating part is that neither of them even have an option where they won't even try to make the delivery, but will just inform you when it's reached the nearest depot. And for *both* of them, you still have to go through a human to get them to hold it at the depot rather than re-attempt delivery. WTF?
I thought everyone just assumed that all of the items in the breakdown were Ticketmaster's "Because We Can" fees?
Anyone with a decent understanding of scientific method and the ability to read research papers is fully qualified to make judgements about the drugs they should take.
Right, but doctors don't keep up with that stuff, as they should, necessitating the advertising expenditures to get new drugs noticed, whether by alerting the doctors or getting their patients to do so.
You acknowledge this widespead irresponsibility on the part of doctors in your next paragraph.
I am not a physicist but I would probably try to explain it this way: Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something. We can call its most basic unit to be a "bit" but I'm not aware of any really solid equivalences between bits and energy. But if you knew this relationship, you could rewrite a lot of physics with the "bit" as one of the fundamental units of physics and get rid of -- say -- energy.
Not exactly what you were looking for, but a "bit" is equal to some number of Joules per Kelvin (the SI units for entropy). Both of them are measures of the degrees of freedom of a system. (Specifically, its logarithm.)
If your hard drive has a capacity of n bits, then it has n "binary degrees of freedom" (permitting it to be in one of 2^n possible distinct states).
Relatedly, temperature is a measure of energy per effective degree of freedom. So, crank out the units in the measure "Joules per Kelvin": it's energy per (energy per degree of freedom), which reduces to degrees of freedom.
Boltzmann's constant is 1.443 bits (or one nat).
No, the strategy would be this:
1) Bring permitted iPhone through checkpoint.
2) Before deplaning, slip it behind the magazines in the pouch behind one of the seats, so it doesn't get noticed when they sweep the plane between flights.
3) Have the phone set on airplane mode and programmed to overload the battery in ~3 hours.
4) Assuming someone hasn't found the phone on the next flight, it catches on fire and spreads to the stack of magazines.
5) Cabin fire.
Solomon's solution would be give one of them the "Mer", and the other one "ck", and then instantly void the deal and give it to whoever doesn't want to see the name split.
Oh, the scientists blamed the damage on non-thermal effects! Gosh, I guess that settles it, then!
Remember, budding young scientsts, if someone tries to refute your conclusion by pointing to confounding factor X, all you have to do is "blame non-X"! Problem solved! No need for that fancy shmancy "control group" business. Just BLAME something else!
(Never mind that they didn't test a non-wifi laptop to see if a non-wifi laptop aspect -- like heat -- could have been responsible for these effects...)
We are actively changing the fitness function for diseases to include "must be resistant to antibiotics, must be resistant to antivirals, must be able to infect even immunised people, etc", this will inevitably lead to bugs that fulfil these criteria... eventually.
I'm no expert on immunology, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't follow. There could be several elements of an ecosystem that affect a virus or bacteria's survivability. When a vaccine culls the system of those vulnerable to element X, and the remaining population is immune to X, it could be that in gaining that resistance, it became newly vulnerable to Y, which is exploited on the next round of vaccines.
So while you could end up one day with a virus that is immune to (pretty much) everything, you could also indefinitely persist in a kind of whack-a-mole cycle where each new vaccine introduces a new resistance *and* a new vulnerability, either of which could have been present (as a resistance or vulnerability) in a previous iteration.
More formally, if there are ecosystem elements A through E and we denote a given disease as [resistances]/[immunities], the generations might go like this:
1) A/BCDE -> vaccine exploits E ... and so on.
2) AE/BCD -> vaccine exploits C
3) ACE/BD -> vaccine exploits B
4) BCE/AD -> vaccine exploits A
5) ABC/DE -> vaccine exploits D
6) BDC/AE
Someone correct me if I'm completely out of left field on this.
Could also repel child labor laws.
I just got this image of some ultra-conservative party in a legislature somewhere organizing itself like a navy, and announcing,
"Warning, warning, lefties attempting to board new legislation. Stand by to repel child labor laws!"
Your missing the essential point: how much "net gain of output or resources" results from a purchase itself depends on how much people actually value what they bought. If you *make* people buy something they hate, for example, you shouldn't treat that as having the same economic benefit as an ordinary voluntary purchase.
The hole-digging/refilling thing is just an extreme example to make the point; the phenomenon exists to some extent with all policies of the type you advocated: if people buy something they *wouldn't have otherwise wanted to buy* (perhaps because they believe the economic theories you're endorsing), you can't fully count the cash value of the purchase as an economic benefit, for the same reason you shouldn't count at all the economic benefit of hole-dig/refilling.
In short: spending is not good. Good spending is good. Spending solely to "help the economy" (rather than because you actually *want* the stuff) is not good, and it props up unsustainable enterprises. And it waste resources in exactly the same sense that paying people to dig/refill holes.
No, it doesn't. If that were true we could solve all our economic problems by ordering everyone to pay someone else to dig and refill a hole.
You need to learn how to translate this stuff:
"The attackers were not successful" -> They got the password hashes.
"The attackers were not able to gain access to sensitive data" --> They got the password hashes plus a bunch of private stuff we stored in cleartext because we're idiots.
"We have no reason to believe the attackers compromised sensitive data." --> They got everything.
Yeah, that's what she said.
Yeah, pilots are already capable of landing on moving surfaces, considering that's what the earth is ;-)
LOL! Good catch, I didn't know what I was thinking there. On further reflection, I think osteosaurus would be a great alternate name for a bone dragon.
I was thinking the same thing, but there's a big difference between saying, "Overpriced CorporoBottled Water (tm) can prevent dehydration" vs saying "Water prevents dehydration". The former artificially claims some superpower in the product and implies that others lacking it, while the latter just says that water in general prevents dehydration.
Considering that water is one of the more effective drinks to that end, and it doesn't imply that this product is better than other kinds of water, it does seem a bit unreasonable to ban the claim. Indeed, it's this kind of tedium that makes them (in the US) have to add a pointless disclaimer "This statement not evaluated by the FDA; this product not intended to treat, diagnose ..." labels on any widely-accepted claim from the medical literature like, "Diets high in calcium have been shown to reduce the risk of osteosaurus."
I completely understand the need to prevent this kind of misleading product claim though.
Yeah, like he said: 18th of October, thirteen hundred-something. The unbolded part was what he left out.
Principle of charity?
No, just mouth issues. The shit your ambassador said to ours was just not appropriate, no matter how healthy your cattle might be.
I think he forgot to mention the first time he saw a copyright notice on software, which was shortly thereafter followed by his dad anally raping him.
Explains a lot, when you think about it.
That's an eminently reasonable point, but it gets undermined when you advocate that kind of treatment for yourself, which I think the OWSers are doing.