Here's what he's playing these days. But I remember one of his solo LPs (which I think I might still have; it was either Beginnings or the Steve Howe Album) had a list of equipment with photos, and I'm pretty sure a Les Paul was in there. He had a lot of guitars on that list.
If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did."
He keeps it because he still *needs* to format documents, and *wants* to do so using a WYSIWIG editor -- and *doesn't* want to (or can't, maybe, due to company policy?) use an open-source one.
With a Word document, you first need to *find* the document, and make sure you have the latest copy. The one on your hard drive might be 6 weeks out of date. The one in your e-mail folder for that project might be a week or two old, the one on the server a day or two old. There might be a copy your co-worker is editing right now.
Revision control software can help, but I've got an aversion to using CVS/SVN-style revision control for binary files. Yes, it can work, but the software was created for text, and you still need to let others know if you want to make changes, so they don't try to at the same time, or you'll have conflicts that can't be resolved since it's binary. And you need to have a local copy of the workspace just to get that one file. In my case, the svn client is on Linux/Sun machines, but I need to edit on a Windows PC. It's just a pain all around.
From that standpoint, wikis are so much easier. We use them to write up tutorials and theory-of-operation types of documents and the like. Too bad my company wants all official documentation (product specs, designs specs, etc.) to be in Word.
But the study is in no way useless. It is a peer reviewed meta study (highest form of scientific proof) that shows conclusively that there is no significant difference in nutrients between organic and non-organic food. I find that useful, as one prominent argument in favor of organic food is, that it was supposedly more nutritious. That has been shown to be wrong.
I would agree that it is useful if there really were a "prominent argument" that organic food is more nutritious, but I can't recall having heard such an argument made.
There's an inverse relationship: if the expectation of an outcome is low, then the information content when that outcome occurs is high (and vice versa). The study only reinforces a commonplace viewpoint, and anyone knowledgeable of biology should not expect plants grown organically to synthesize nutrients more than plants grown otherwise. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I didn't mean that it's useless in an absolute sense. After all, the expectation of the contrary result isn't zero, it's just very low. What I did mean is that my reaction was (and the reaction of all but the most naive persons should be) "So what"? It's far less useful than a study looking into the results of organic food consumption in terms of toxicity or antibiotic resistance would be useful.
You have a control group (one type of food) and a variable group (the other type). The single independent variable is the difference between the two; in this case, the (binary-valued) variable is "organically grown". Nutritional value is an outcome; it isn't an independent variable. There is nothing in scientific methodology that says you can't measure multiple outcomes within the same study; you could measure nutritional value *and* toxic effects *and* effect on occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains within a single study that has the same independent variable, if you have the resources and interest to do so.
Perhaps you were only trying to say that, since it was a meta-study, they were constrained by the nature of the previous studies in existence. That may be the case (or maybe not), but that's a resource constraint, not a methodological constraint. And the way your original statement was phrased has me convinced you were referring to method.
Yeah, there's nothing like the lack of a human touch in broadcasting.
I can't stand the grating "morning zoo" type of programming. But, once upon a time (late 60s, early 70s), there were DJs that played music they liked rather than from some corporate playlist, in a format called "progressive radio" (later displaced by AOR and the like), and it was cool.
Lately I've been listening a bit to The Sound (Los Angeles, 100.3) which has DJs who don't waste time with "inane babbling" and way fewer commercials (at least it seems that way) than KLOS. (I could go for a bit less 80s music in their programming, I'll admit.) Sunday nights on KCRW (Santa Monica, 89.9) I enjoy Gary Calamar's "Open Road". I was in Portland not long ago. KINK FM is good there (and I often listen to their stream when online).
That's new... I've had a Seiko for years and occasionally check their web page for updates to the Mac software (as of the last version I tried it still sucks -- won't display contacts alphabetically). I'll give the Linux version a try and hope it's decent. Their Windows software works OK but I'm trying to move everything off of the one Windows machine I keep around (if I ever get Quicken to work under Wine, that machine will be history).
I just meant that you should choose a word whose meaning matches what you want to say. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty, of course ("When I use a word...").
you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value.
Sorry to pick on you again but that's wrong. The variable in the study is "organically grown vs. not organically grown". Nutritional value is an outcome.
Well, yes, you hit a nerve: "tells me you didn't like the outcome of the study, had no better arguments, then had to fall back to insinuating without proof that the scientist are just crooks who will bend the truth to earn a few bucks. Ahh, I love a good conspiracy."
Sure his only evidence of "corporate interests" was the rather useless focus of the study solely on nutritional benefits (this makes the study something of a straw man). But I took his post as more of a facetious comment than an argument. We're allowed to be facetious here.
But you went further by questioning his motives ("didn't like the outcome"), reasoning ("had no better arguments"), and methods ("insinuating...that the scientist [sic] are just crooks").
1. You don't know whether he agreed with the outcome or not. It isn't the outcome that's being questioned, but whether the focus on nutritional content really has any value. He may well agree with the outcome, just not it's relevance; you could have asked. 2. You don't know whether he had any better arguments. Again, you could have asked. 3. He made no such insinuation. It doesn't make a scientist a crook to take corporate money to perform a study. It would be crooked if the scientist distorted the results of the study. He did not say that that's what happened.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's what he's playing these days. But I remember one of his solo LPs (which I think I might still have; it was either Beginnings or the Steve Howe Album) had a list of equipment with photos, and I'm pretty sure a Les Paul was in there. He had a lot of guitars on that list.
Didn't Steve Howe play a Les Paul?
Aw, nuts! You're spoiling the fun.
No.
...but not a case.
(And he can't get that even-tanned look on his face.)
From Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey:
If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did."
Maybe he runs truecrypt on the client; this would prevent anyone snooping the network from reading the data.
At the risk of being off-topic, who's the idiot responsible for all the "funny" mods?
Go ahead, mod me "funny", see if I care.
Yes. Apply tape to your cat. Peel tape off of cat. Analyze results.
Brian: "You are all different"
Crowd: "Yes, we are all different"
Yes, it's a red flag alerting those looking to make frist psot.
"Between" implies there are only two; I'd like to see that building. Maybe "among"? But seriously, look at definition 6 from dictionary.com:
within
preposition
6. in or into the interior of or the parts or space enclosed by: within city walls.
He keeps it because he still *needs* to format documents, and *wants* to do so using a WYSIWIG editor -- and *doesn't* want to (or can't, maybe, due to company policy?) use an open-source one.
With a Word document, you first need to *find* the document, and make sure you have the latest copy. The one on your hard drive might be 6 weeks out of date. The one in your e-mail folder for that project might be a week or two old, the one on the server a day or two old. There might be a copy your co-worker is editing right now.
Revision control software can help, but I've got an aversion to using CVS/SVN-style revision control for binary files. Yes, it can work, but the software was created for text, and you still need to let others know if you want to make changes, so they don't try to at the same time, or you'll have conflicts that can't be resolved since it's binary. And you need to have a local copy of the workspace just to get that one file. In my case, the svn client is on Linux/Sun machines, but I need to edit on a Windows PC. It's just a pain all around.
From that standpoint, wikis are so much easier. We use them to write up tutorials and theory-of-operation types of documents and the like. Too bad my company wants all official documentation (product specs, designs specs, etc.) to be in Word.
But the study is in no way useless. It is a peer reviewed meta study (highest form of scientific proof) that shows conclusively that there is no significant difference in nutrients between organic and non-organic food. I find that useful, as one prominent argument in favor of organic food is, that it was supposedly more nutritious. That has been shown to be wrong.
I would agree that it is useful if there really were a "prominent argument" that organic food is more nutritious, but I can't recall having heard such an argument made.
There's an inverse relationship: if the expectation of an outcome is low, then the information content when that outcome occurs is high (and vice versa). The study only reinforces a commonplace viewpoint, and anyone knowledgeable of biology should not expect plants grown organically to synthesize nutrients more than plants grown otherwise. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I didn't mean that it's useless in an absolute sense. After all, the expectation of the contrary result isn't zero, it's just very low. What I did mean is that my reaction was (and the reaction of all but the most naive persons should be) "So what"? It's far less useful than a study looking into the results of organic food consumption in terms of toxicity or antibiotic resistance would be useful.
You have a control group (one type of food) and a variable group (the other type). The single independent variable is the difference between the two; in this case, the (binary-valued) variable is "organically grown". Nutritional value is an outcome; it isn't an independent variable. There is nothing in scientific methodology that says you can't measure multiple outcomes within the same study; you could measure nutritional value *and* toxic effects *and* effect on occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains within a single study that has the same independent variable, if you have the resources and interest to do so.
Perhaps you were only trying to say that, since it was a meta-study, they were constrained by the nature of the previous studies in existence. That may be the case (or maybe not), but that's a resource constraint, not a methodological constraint. And the way your original statement was phrased has me convinced you were referring to method.
is more people like this doofus to make it look hard.
I'm just glad there's a Jack FM station here
Yeah, there's nothing like the lack of a human touch in broadcasting.
I can't stand the grating "morning zoo" type of programming. But, once upon a time (late 60s, early 70s), there were DJs that played music they liked rather than from some corporate playlist, in a format called "progressive radio" (later displaced by AOR and the like), and it was cool.
Lately I've been listening a bit to The Sound (Los Angeles, 100.3) which has DJs who don't waste time with "inane babbling" and way fewer commercials (at least it seems that way) than KLOS. (I could go for a bit less 80s music in their programming, I'll admit.) Sunday nights on KCRW (Santa Monica, 89.9) I enjoy Gary Calamar's "Open Road". I was in Portland not long ago. KINK FM is good there (and I often listen to their stream when online).
They may not have made his phone, but they bundled it with a number of services (including texting), so I think it still fits.
Open source refers to the licensing; it doesn't imply an absence of copyright.
That's new... I've had a Seiko for years and occasionally check their web page for updates to the Mac software (as of the last version I tried it still sucks -- won't display contacts alphabetically). I'll give the Linux version a try and hope it's decent. Their Windows software works OK but I'm trying to move everything off of the one Windows machine I keep around (if I ever get Quicken to work under Wine, that machine will be history).
I just meant that you should choose a word whose meaning matches what you want to say. Unless you are Humpty Dumpty, of course ("When I use a word...").
I thought "traditional farming" (as practiced for millenniums) was always organic. It's the use of synthetic chemicals that is non-traditional.
you have to choose ONE variable to do a study, and these scientist chose nutritional value.
Sorry to pick on you again but that's wrong. The variable in the study is "organically grown vs. not organically grown". Nutritional value is an outcome.
Well, yes, you hit a nerve: "tells me you didn't like the outcome of the study, had no better arguments, then had to fall back to insinuating without proof that the scientist are just crooks who will bend the truth to earn a few bucks. Ahh, I love a good conspiracy."
Sure his only evidence of "corporate interests" was the rather useless focus of the study solely on nutritional benefits (this makes the study something of a straw man). But I took his post as more of a facetious comment than an argument. We're allowed to be facetious here.
But you went further by questioning his motives ("didn't like the outcome"), reasoning ("had no better arguments"), and methods ("insinuating...that the scientist [sic] are just crooks").
1. You don't know whether he agreed with the outcome or not. It isn't the outcome that's being questioned, but whether the focus on nutritional content really has any value. He may well agree with the outcome, just not it's relevance; you could have asked.
2. You don't know whether he had any better arguments. Again, you could have asked.
3. He made no such insinuation. It doesn't make a scientist a crook to take corporate money to perform a study. It would be crooked if the scientist distorted the results of the study. He did not say that that's what happened.