What that language means is that it's not even clear there really is a correlation yet. If you check enough pairs of data sets for correlation, you're pretty certain to get some false positives.
Yep, it's the same basic principle of operation as the birthday paradox. But still, they're not "false positives". The data does correlate. The problem is in the sample itself. Since you're not out to actively trying to locate vynils or autists, so yuo grab a sample of 100 people, in which you then might've found 5 autists and 10 people with vynil floors. If 4 of those autists happen to live in houses with vynil floors, the data *does* correlate quite strongly. The correlation just isn't very significant because of the tiny sample size.
Not too long. The summary's title says "hints at", and TFA actually mentions that The scientists were surprised by their finding, calling it "far from conclusive." Because their research was not designed to focus on autism, they recommend further study of larger numbers of children to see whether the link can be confirmed., which is almost repeating the correlation/causation thing.
As recently as 1995 (in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission) the Court ruled that anonymous pamphleting is protected by the First Amendment
What that means is:
Posting anonymous pamphlets is legal;
You can't legislate to make it illegal (not american, can't recall whether 1st amendment rules at state or federal level);
Since anonymity is legal, you can't ask law enforcement to help you find out who posted something anonymous (or do anything else about it, for that matter) unless there's something else about it that makes it illegal.
What it doesn't mean is:
If you spread an "anonymous" message via SMS, it doesn't bar people from just saying "look whose caller ID it is!"
If the speech itself is illegal (not sure what constitutes illegal speech in the US, but violence/hate inciting speech, or holocaust denial are recurring items elsewhere), anonymity doesn't suddenly make it OK because of the first amendment
Of all things that could be optimized, urls shouldn't have a high priority (unless you want people to enter them manually).
I'm pretty sure their HTML, CSS, and javascript could be optimized way more than just their urls.
Out of curiosity, I just tried saving the discussion attached to this comment. That yielded 375KiB worth of data. That makes the rather heinous 108-character URL that links to it amount to under 0.03% of the total data transfered. Assuming everything but the HTML was cached, it's still a 40 KiB download, so the URL represents 0.28% of the total data. Forget Knuth's prematurity, misguided optimization is indeed the root of all evil.
"who might actually get to moderately sensitive places on account of not actually having anything negative in their backgrounds, you just" (...). Reviewing and editing your post, and then forgetting about it midway through royally sucks.
You needn't have "obedient ant-like slaves to the old country". You needn't have some overarching conspiracy in place either. All you need is plain old social ties. Wherever you have large numbers of immigrants, you also get communities, because you need the feeling you belong. Bonus points for cultures that tend to be gregarious (dunno if it's actually the case with the Chinese). People tend to be interested in the things that influence themselves or their kin, and will pick that information up. People gossip, it's a fact of life. Once you have a largish "spy network" of immigrants in place, who might actually get to moderately seyou just have to have a comparatively small number of plants in the community, who gather, filter, and report all that gossip back to "the mothership".
I believe that security through obscurity doesn't work.
Me neither, usually. But this is security through obscurity reversed: you're not minimizing exposure to attacks so much as you're limiting the amount of attackers available. If the platform is obscure enough, there's only a handful of doors to knock at 'til you find the attacker, or the person who gave information to the attacker (perhaps unwittingly).
Isn't the big difference that Apple currently use a trackpad that can register multitouch while this is to be a touchscreen that can register multitouch?
Other than the tablet-like 1:1 mapping of screen and input device, I can't think of a single conceptual difference between a trackpad and a touchscreen. So the real question is: is MicroSoft trying to do anything funky with the absolute positioning of your fingers?
Apple has done it on their MacBooks, too, since the newer unibody ones have a trackpad that does 1-4 finger gestures. I'm also not entirely sure wth "the broad range of tasks a fully fledged desktop/laptop computer and associated operating system performs" is supposed to mean. We're talking about an input device, and being able to recognize a number of gestures associated with that device. If you're trying to transform it into an "operating system-wide touch technology" you're already doing it wrong!
I'd say let's meet up and try it, but we're probably in different continents, and the very point of the discussion is that I'm not sure we'd survive the experiment:)
ANFO is a high explosive. It detonates (ie, faster than sound expansion) when used with some other primary charge. "Explosion" can also mean a comparatively fast deflagration. Plus, the OP mentioned tossing the ammonium nitrate on a bunsen burner, which means there was a fuel source -- and a reasonably hot one at that. Finally, don't forget that we're talking about a lab environment. Even a comparatively small "flare" in the grand scheme of things is a pretty nasty explosion.
Ok, I wasn't clear: I meant how the system would make sense, not how it effectively works. Then again, I'm expecting parents to go to the cinema with their children and discuss the film afterwards, so I'm already working on pretty flawed premises:).
Honestly, though, I can't conceive Hannibal Lecter still spooking the crap out of me the way he does while being innocuous enough for a kid young teenager, but, to me, it's not the cannibalism that's scary, it's the way he plays with people. It's his smug superiority, his geniality, the way, even incarcerated, he reaches out and attacks. It's a man that even in almost full lockdown still has power. And he's almost pure evil.
(Incidentally, I am obviously stating that, if Anthony Hopkins's performance hadn't been quite as good, the character itself might not have warranted an 'R')
I agree and thought it was pretty obvious as to why he didn't wear clothes. By the time I had to explain it to the third person, though, I began to understand the argument that the comic would not translate well into a movie.
Sadly, it's not so much an argument on why it doesn't translate well into film as it is a reflection of what happens when a cult classic gets mass market visibility.
Arguably, you can read much more shock value into a blue dong on a comic book (where most authors would simply have drawn him as a Ken doll and hand-waved their way out of explaining it) than on film, where, when you have a flesh and blood person, and you can see he's naked, there's no way you can not expect a naked penis in between his two naked legs. Except, of course, this is a superhero film so it can't possibly mean to show it for artisic purposes, right?
The penultimate villain of movies: Hannibal Lecter could have been conveyed in a PG-13 movie. R gave the director alot more to work with but the chilling aspect of Dr. Lecter is his normalcy up to the point where he does or says something taboo to our culture.
No, he couldn't. "PG" means Parental Guidance. As in, you actually talk to your kid about the film, and try to "reverse the damage" it might've done. Arguably, you could've rated Kill Bill as "PG-13". If you watch Kill Bill with your kid, I think you can easily make him see that it's all a live-action Tom and Jerry thing. People don't go around with katanas cutting arms off. How the hell do you do that with Hannibal Lecter? The reason why the rendition of the character is so famous is because it's freaking disturbing. It's lifelike. It's the stuff that makes your kid have nightmares that night, because anybody around him could be like that.
Both of those are rated R, though, so go watch The Prestige instead. That's PG-13, dunno why. It's a pretty obsessive, twisted, violent plot, it's just not all that violent on the surface. In general, I wouldn't trust most 13 year olds to get the film, but, for the ones mature enough to actually get it, I'd worry whether they were then mature enough to stomach it. Plus it's not an easy film to help a kid to digest. Hence, I'd rate it R.
it was Dr. Manhattan's package that those seven people were turned off by (my sister said it was like watching porn)
Ironic, since the blue willie is about as non-sexual as you can get without explicitly stating "this penis is not meant to be taken sexually". I'd even say it's pointedly non-sexual: he's transcended the human state, his body is really just a convenient shell, and he has pretty much started to lose sight of what the whole point of sex is (as the plot shows you).
Like I said: "harnessed". Thawte was a company, not a piece of software than might be F/OSS itself. The technical foundation on which that company was built is open source though, and Ubuntu is his way of giving back to the community (I'm afraid I can't, off the cuff, find a quote to back me up on this, but some time ago I read something posted by Mark to this effect).
Actually, put the right spin on it, and Canonical/Ubuntu is the best example of Open Source success: guy harnesses F/OSS stuff to get rich, pays the community back by putting his money where his mouth is.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, good point. I was thinking of the data alone.
Why does MY local ATM never spew out 100 euro notes? :(
Yeah, well, "100 ISK to EUR" on google yielded: "100 Iceland kronur = 0.357164427 Euros", so... hmm... there's gotta be a joke here somewhere...
What that language means is that it's not even clear there really is a correlation yet. If you check enough pairs of data sets for correlation, you're pretty certain to get some false positives.
Yep, it's the same basic principle of operation as the birthday paradox. But still, they're not "false positives". The data does correlate. The problem is in the sample itself. Since you're not out to actively trying to locate vynils or autists, so yuo grab a sample of 100 people, in which you then might've found 5 autists and 10 people with vynil floors. If 4 of those autists happen to live in houses with vynil floors, the data *does* correlate quite strongly. The correlation just isn't very significant because of the tiny sample size.
Er... my point was that both the summary and the article had said it before the call for "who's first?" even came out.
Not too long. The summary's title says "hints at", and TFA actually mentions that The scientists were surprised by their finding, calling it "far from conclusive." Because their research was not designed to focus on autism, they recommend further study of larger numbers of children to see whether the link can be confirmed., which is almost repeating the correlation/causation thing.
As recently as 1995 (in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission) the Court ruled that anonymous pamphleting is protected by the First Amendment
What that means is:
What it doesn't mean is:
Of all things that could be optimized, urls shouldn't have a high priority (unless you want people to enter them manually). I'm pretty sure their HTML, CSS, and javascript could be optimized way more than just their urls.
Out of curiosity, I just tried saving the discussion attached to this comment. That yielded 375KiB worth of data. That makes the rather heinous 108-character URL that links to it amount to under 0.03% of the total data transfered. Assuming everything but the HTML was cached, it's still a 40 KiB download, so the URL represents 0.28% of the total data. Forget Knuth's prematurity, misguided optimization is indeed the root of all evil.
who might actually get to moderately seyou just
"who might actually get to moderately sensitive places on account of not actually having anything negative in their backgrounds, you just" (...). Reviewing and editing your post, and then forgetting about it midway through royally sucks.
You needn't have "obedient ant-like slaves to the old country". You needn't have some overarching conspiracy in place either. All you need is plain old social ties. Wherever you have large numbers of immigrants, you also get communities, because you need the feeling you belong. Bonus points for cultures that tend to be gregarious (dunno if it's actually the case with the Chinese). People tend to be interested in the things that influence themselves or their kin, and will pick that information up. People gossip, it's a fact of life. Once you have a largish "spy network" of immigrants in place, who might actually get to moderately seyou just have to have a comparatively small number of plants in the community, who gather, filter, and report all that gossip back to "the mothership".
I believe that security through obscurity doesn't work.
Me neither, usually. But this is security through obscurity reversed: you're not minimizing exposure to attacks so much as you're limiting the amount of attackers available. If the platform is obscure enough, there's only a handful of doors to knock at 'til you find the attacker, or the person who gave information to the attacker (perhaps unwittingly).
(To be more specific, a 5Dd20 is the 20-sided 5-dimensional "tetahedron-equivalent" dice)
Aw, c'mon. Everybody knows algebraic dice notation is not commutative: d20 != 20D.
You seem to be implying that scientific disciplines are somehow immune to that sort of influence. That's a bit past naive, to be blunt./p
Isn't the big difference that Apple currently use a trackpad that can register multitouch while this is to be a touchscreen that can register multitouch?
Other than the tablet-like 1:1 mapping of screen and input device, I can't think of a single conceptual difference between a trackpad and a touchscreen. So the real question is: is MicroSoft trying to do anything funky with the absolute positioning of your fingers?
Apple has done it on their MacBooks, too, since the newer unibody ones have a trackpad that does 1-4 finger gestures. I'm also not entirely sure wth "the broad range of tasks a fully fledged desktop/laptop computer and associated operating system performs" is supposed to mean. We're talking about an input device, and being able to recognize a number of gestures associated with that device. If you're trying to transform it into an "operating system-wide touch technology" you're already doing it wrong!
I'd say let's meet up and try it, but we're probably in different continents, and the very point of the discussion is that I'm not sure we'd survive the experiment :)
ANFO is a high explosive. It detonates (ie, faster than sound expansion) when used with some other primary charge. "Explosion" can also mean a comparatively fast deflagration. Plus, the OP mentioned tossing the ammonium nitrate on a bunsen burner, which means there was a fuel source -- and a reasonably hot one at that. Finally, don't forget that we're talking about a lab environment. Even a comparatively small "flare" in the grand scheme of things is a pretty nasty explosion.
Didn't notice it was that big. Maybe he's a showie not a growie?
Ok, I wasn't clear: I meant how the system would make sense, not how it effectively works. Then again, I'm expecting parents to go to the cinema with their children and discuss the film afterwards, so I'm already working on pretty flawed premises :).
Honestly, though, I can't conceive Hannibal Lecter still spooking the crap out of me the way he does while being innocuous enough for a kid young teenager, but, to me, it's not the cannibalism that's scary, it's the way he plays with people. It's his smug superiority, his geniality, the way, even incarcerated, he reaches out and attacks. It's a man that even in almost full lockdown still has power. And he's almost pure evil.
(Incidentally, I am obviously stating that, if Anthony Hopkins's performance hadn't been quite as good, the character itself might not have warranted an 'R')
Could still be ammonium nitrate. Just think, what happens if you grab a bottle of medical-grade oxygen and put the open outlet near an open flame?
I agree and thought it was pretty obvious as to why he didn't wear clothes. By the time I had to explain it to the third person, though, I began to understand the argument that the comic would not translate well into a movie.
Sadly, it's not so much an argument on why it doesn't translate well into film as it is a reflection of what happens when a cult classic gets mass market visibility.
Arguably, you can read much more shock value into a blue dong on a comic book (where most authors would simply have drawn him as a Ken doll and hand-waved their way out of explaining it) than on film, where, when you have a flesh and blood person, and you can see he's naked, there's no way you can not expect a naked penis in between his two naked legs. Except, of course, this is a superhero film so it can't possibly mean to show it for artisic purposes, right?
The penultimate villain of movies: Hannibal Lecter could have been conveyed in a PG-13 movie. R gave the director alot more to work with but the chilling aspect of Dr. Lecter is his normalcy up to the point where he does or says something taboo to our culture.
No, he couldn't. "PG" means Parental Guidance. As in, you actually talk to your kid about the film, and try to "reverse the damage" it might've done. Arguably, you could've rated Kill Bill as "PG-13". If you watch Kill Bill with your kid, I think you can easily make him see that it's all a live-action Tom and Jerry thing. People don't go around with katanas cutting arms off. How the hell do you do that with Hannibal Lecter? The reason why the rendition of the character is so famous is because it's freaking disturbing. It's lifelike. It's the stuff that makes your kid have nightmares that night, because anybody around him could be like that.
Both of those are rated R, though, so go watch The Prestige instead. That's PG-13, dunno why. It's a pretty obsessive, twisted, violent plot, it's just not all that violent on the surface. In general, I wouldn't trust most 13 year olds to get the film, but, for the ones mature enough to actually get it, I'd worry whether they were then mature enough to stomach it. Plus it's not an easy film to help a kid to digest. Hence, I'd rate it R.
it was Dr. Manhattan's package that those seven people were turned off by (my sister said it was like watching porn)
Ironic, since the blue willie is about as non-sexual as you can get without explicitly stating "this penis is not meant to be taken sexually". I'd even say it's pointedly non-sexual: he's transcended the human state, his body is really just a convenient shell, and he has pretty much started to lose sight of what the whole point of sex is (as the plot shows you).
Like I said: "harnessed". Thawte was a company, not a piece of software than might be F/OSS itself. The technical foundation on which that company was built is open source though, and Ubuntu is his way of giving back to the community (I'm afraid I can't, off the cuff, find a quote to back me up on this, but some time ago I read something posted by Mark to this effect).
Actually, put the right spin on it, and Canonical/Ubuntu is the best example of Open Source success: guy harnesses F/OSS stuff to get rich, pays the community back by putting his money where his mouth is.