Apart from my joke response, yes, N = 13 is way too small here. Not only that, but the circumstances are questionable as in to how the light was administered. No tests have been done with other light sources generating other spectrums either.
Someone I know has done some rather ground breaking studies in the past, resulting in Philips selling light therapy lamps to cure winter depression. This was the first, or at least the first serious commercial supplier of such lamps, working with clinically proven effectiveness. I know what type of things he had to study to come up with what exactly works and what doesn't, so he would have scientific proof as well as proper clinical tests to prove that the light therapy fixtures he came up with actually worked and what was the "effective ingredient". He also had to make them in such a way that using them would not be too much of a burden to people, getting a usable balance between comfort while the light was on and duration. The higher the light intensity, the shorter exposure required.
One of the things he found, was that below a threshold, your body simply wouldn't react when it came to winter depression treatment. For sleeping (another study he's continuously working on), however, any light source he tried, was an influence, even at very low intensities. He found that things like dream intensity, REM patterns and all that increased when people were in a totally dark room. Even with your eyelids shut, your body still reacts to the light.His most recent study found that by exposing senior citizens to a high dosage of "day light" slows and even can improve conditions like dementia and is very effective against depression.
For all these, to get absolute proof, he had to do double blind field tests on large control groups, in their natural environments, because the plain effect of just exposing them to a test was itself an influence already. Also, as mentioned before, the spectrum and getting over a certain threshold was significant in the senior citizen experiment. He had to do tests in several elderly homes for long periods of time, using different light sources and amounts of light per center, for 6 months time and gather all the data on depression, dementia, number of complaints, amount of people taking an afternoon nap and all that, plus the comparison to the situation a year before, to get any significant data to work with. All in all, his study in senior citizens used more than a thousand subjects. Even with that number, it was hard to get to a level of clinical proof that using intense artificial daylight exposure inside elderly homes was beneficial to the health of the inhabitants.
For the sleeping pattern tests, he is exposing people to different intensities and spectrums for months, using dozens of test subjects each year, for years in a row. People tend to have different sleeping patterns depending on how their day went, the temperature, their general health and the season already. It was common sense to assume that and he quickly found out that the deviation was such that he had to work with large groups and take a lot of samples to deal with that. In order to get any significant results, he'll have to figure out what the standard deviation is per subject, for the entire group and use that to come up with base levels in which he can find differences that can only be attributed to his light testing.Now, how do thirteen lab monkeys with apparatuses stuck to their eyeballs just before they were sent to bed compare to that again?
There are quite some good studies into how light triggers sleeping patterns and causes or prevents winter depression and all that. With a tablet, you usually will be exposing little more than the retina around your "yellow spot" while with using lenses and all, I think you might be exposing a lot more of the peripheral areas of your retina as well. There could be a significant difference in how that influences your melatonin levels. Yes, it's true that the amount of "blueish" light over a certain threshold that hits your retina influences your melatonin production and sleeping patterns. However, the actual amount that hits your retina when using a tablet and where it hits will be a significant factor in that. If the results of this study this were true, people looking at LCD televisions and LCD computer screen would also not be sleeping at night, nor would they be suffering from winter depression. I think there is plenty of statistic evidence that whoever conducted this study, must have done something wrong to come up with these results.
They started their own country inside territory already belonging to the British Empire. How would you like it if for instance Alabama suddenly said they were independent? You don't just "start your own country" and not harm the country you previously belonged to.
They would have revealed who Georges spies in France were, if they'd have that information and a way to get it to the French. Getting that information from someone and getting it across would mean months of dangerous travel at the very least, with very little effect. The risk and effort were just not worth the trouble of an attempt.
Emerrassing details aplenty in those days. They just weren't written down in official documents or published in newspapers. Go check the internet about the sexual relations and mistresses and all that of the UK monarchy and the US founding fathers if such things interest you. I can assure you that the gossip circuit in those days was probably bigger and more influential than it was now, since people didn't have a lot of independent sources to verify the word of mouth information they got.
Taking up arms was the most effective way to do things back then. Maybe it still is, maybe today the pen or the voting ballot is mightier than the sword.
Taking a stab at Mannings personality is cheap. Sure, he did do things that were illegal and probably wrong. I'm sure you've done a few wrong things in your life. Even if I knew what those were and what your personality is, pointing out the latter wouldn't make me a better person, nor make you a worse one.
Manning may have uncovered a lot of things that should never have happened. However, he did leak a lot of secret information. If you look at the sheer volume of it, most of it wasn't "wrongdoing" and should have remained secret regardless. So he also did do a lot of wrong here, even if he intended it to be "the right thing". True, not a lot of big secrets were revealed, but someone in that position should not be leaking information, period.
I don't think there is evidence that Manning tried to get the wrongdoers prosecuted using the methods that should be in place to do that. Is there? I'd love to read that. By exposing them without doing that first, he was judge and jury himself, leaving the execution to the lynching mob that the press is in this case. I'm not saying those people were innocent, but laws, judges and all that exist for a very good reason and he chose to ignore that.
The enemy of my enemy is just that, he is not my friend nor is he my foe. He may have believed he did the right thing, but he did a lot of wrong things trying to do so. That doesn't mean he deserves what he is getting now. Just like everyone else, he deserves a fair trail and a humane treatment. If there is an existing medical condition that made him act the way he did, or had a big influence on how his thought patterns work, that should be considered in that fair trial.
Nobody thought this could be turned into a guided missile, have they? It won't take more than a few weeks before some robber will drive it through the front of some store to get inside.
The US has become a corpocracy with just two parties that only marginally differ in reality. The only real difference is how much the companies pay the representatives in "election funds" and not in what they actually decide. If you want change, change your legal representation and make sure actual good laws get passed. Obama's medicare bill wasn't the best on the planet to start with, it got worse with all the compromises, but at least it's an attempt and it may actually proof itself in the future. It is evident that this is the best that the USA can come up with and that this is what the USA voters chose.How about making an actual change and not complain about how bad the government the US chose themselves is doing? If you don't like your government, change it, don't whine that they can't do it right. You chose them, you deal with the consequences. The USA should be able to get every inhabitant of the USA proper medical care for less than what is spent now, there's plenty of proof in other countries. If they can't establish that, they have only themselves to blame.
From what I understand, the maximum penalty he could receive is less than the time he already served "in custody" in the UK, plus a rather small fine, relatively speaking. Also, he is not wanted for a trial, but only for questioning. The Swedish police so far have not taken up the invitation to question Assange in the UK, personally, via teleconference or in writing. Even if he was extradited and went to trial in Sweden and indeed found guilty, they could only make him pay the small fine, since the time he spent in custody in the UK will count as well. The whole "witch hunt" has no merit, he already went to jail, is being restricted against his will for a long period and I doubt that he'd mind paying the fine if the result would be that he'd be able to walk around free again. Things just don't add up, there must be an alternate agenda behind all this. Don't get me wrong, this is not about Assange being right or innocent, this is about an extradition request that makes no sense.
First of all, skimming forums for feedback about the changes in Gnome3 gives you zero people that appear coherent throughout their posts that actually like the changes, apart from some Gnome3 developers. Go figure. The amount of people bitching about not being able to do things window managers have given people since TWM and CDE were the latest thing is simply overwhelming.
Second of all, tablets may be getting more popular, but you're replacing desktop user interfaces so at the very least, retain the features, possibly configurable, that make up a decent desktop window manager. For instance, no screen saver configuration or selection? What?? No hot corner selection? You need third party plugins to get you an icon you can click once to open applications?
You may be right about making assumptions, but it's not this guys task to do research in to what users want and how they like the changes. That task is for the gnome development team and they haven't done that ever. Not before, not during and not after the release of Gnome3.
Now what case can be made for gnome3 changes? I haven't seen one tablet manufacturer that adapted Gnome3 as their UI, I've seen literally hundreds of users complain, I haven't seen more than a handful people that like the changes, most of them being Gnome3 developers and thus biased. If you want a case to be made for the Gnome3 changes, why don't you do so yourself instead of blaming other people they're not doing it for you? What are those merits you are talking about? How much users has "gnome" gained since the introduction of Gnome3? I'm willing to bet the absolute number user base has dropped, while both Win7 and OSX have grown, so comparing Gnome3 to those makes Gnome3 look bad.
You can get a CVE nuber reserved for your vulnerability I believe? I guess you could give a description at that moment and publicly open the CVE later on?
Sure the market can get volitile but most companies in the S&P 500 actually do have value..
The perceived value and actual value are usually not even close to each other. It used to be, a long time ago, that you'd want to see a companies value as what their actual assets were worth, plus a limited amount of what "goodwill" and "market potential" would gain in the future. However, if the dividents and stock price raise due to just these factors wasn't absolutely certain to double your money in 10 years, the stock would be too expensive.
These days, it's all about what people think the market sentiment will do to the price and stock prices easily go over 40 annual profits for companies that own very little assets themselves. Really, if you were doing this for "long term guaranteed investment" your money would be safer in a savings account where sentiment isn't the main contributor to the value of your investment.
There is never a barrier if the terrorist is determined enough. You are only putting up barriers for yourself if you want to try and prevent every conceivable form of terrorism. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
I sit in highly unergonomic positions but still don't experience any pain.
Say that again in 10 years time. Don't do it, you will wear down just like people doing manual labor like cobbling or working with pneumatic jackhammers and such. Get a decent desk, put the top of the screen at eye level, make sure you don't have to squint or bend over to read it, even after sitting behind the computer all day. If you have to, get glasses, a better screen or use a larger font. Most important, just don't sit behind a computer for long days, keep away from the screen for longer periods and get your body excersized in between your computer sessions. Just walking to the fridge to get a snack doesn't count.
Why would you want such a thing? Humans can't read it and it sounds like criminals can easily swap tags or fake tags if they want to disguise themselves. License plates at least gave you the option to report a driver that caused an accident. At best, this is useful for statistics about vehicle usage, not for individual tracking, taxing or that sort of thing.
Because the HF has harmonics that are in the audible spectrum as well. Not only that, but it "dampens" the amount of dB you have left for signal/noise ratio. You can try and use a low-pass filter to filter it out, but since those are analog, they will also filter out part of the audible spectrum and not filter out all the hf noise, just dampen it.
It should be called high frequency gambling and taxed as such. It has nothing to do with the (perceived) value but only with a gamble on what the sentiment and competing algorithms will produce as the next stock or derivative price.
Any derivative trade and any stock trade that is done within 28 days of purchase should be taxed as gambling. It's nothing more or less than that so it's fair if these big online casino's get their profits taxed so the rest of us can profit too.
It takes 3-5 years to field test this stuff. It takes years of preparation after the final decision of what hardware to use before you get to launch the thing and after that, to get it to mars. You are looking at the best of the best, proven technology hardware available for this sort of radiation tolerance at the moment they had the last opportunity to make design changes.
Slashdot Mirror
Apart from my joke response, yes, N = 13 is way too small here. Not only that, but the circumstances are questionable as in to how the light was administered. No tests have been done with other light sources generating other spectrums either.
Someone I know has done some rather ground breaking studies in the past, resulting in Philips selling light therapy lamps to cure winter depression. This was the first, or at least the first serious commercial supplier of such lamps, working with clinically proven effectiveness. I know what type of things he had to study to come up with what exactly works and what doesn't, so he would have scientific proof as well as proper clinical tests to prove that the light therapy fixtures he came up with actually worked and what was the "effective ingredient". He also had to make them in such a way that using them would not be too much of a burden to people, getting a usable balance between comfort while the light was on and duration. The higher the light intensity, the shorter exposure required.
One of the things he found, was that below a threshold, your body simply wouldn't react when it came to winter depression treatment. For sleeping (another study he's continuously working on), however, any light source he tried, was an influence, even at very low intensities. He found that things like dream intensity, REM patterns and all that increased when people were in a totally dark room. Even with your eyelids shut, your body still reacts to the light.His most recent study found that by exposing senior citizens to a high dosage of "day light" slows and even can improve conditions like dementia and is very effective against depression.
For all these, to get absolute proof, he had to do double blind field tests on large control groups, in their natural environments, because the plain effect of just exposing them to a test was itself an influence already. Also, as mentioned before, the spectrum and getting over a certain threshold was significant in the senior citizen experiment. He had to do tests in several elderly homes for long periods of time, using different light sources and amounts of light per center, for 6 months time and gather all the data on depression, dementia, number of complaints, amount of people taking an afternoon nap and all that, plus the comparison to the situation a year before, to get any significant data to work with. All in all, his study in senior citizens used more than a thousand subjects. Even with that number, it was hard to get to a level of clinical proof that using intense artificial daylight exposure inside elderly homes was beneficial to the health of the inhabitants.
For the sleeping pattern tests, he is exposing people to different intensities and spectrums for months, using dozens of test subjects each year, for years in a row. People tend to have different sleeping patterns depending on how their day went, the temperature, their general health and the season already. It was common sense to assume that and he quickly found out that the deviation was such that he had to work with large groups and take a lot of samples to deal with that. In order to get any significant results, he'll have to figure out what the standard deviation is per subject, for the entire group and use that to come up with base levels in which he can find differences that can only be attributed to his light testing.Now, how do thirteen lab monkeys with apparatuses stuck to their eyeballs just before they were sent to bed compare to that again?
You may conclude that the pill you took yourself while doing the study is a powerful hallucinogen. Conclusive results based on just a single sample!
There are quite some good studies into how light triggers sleeping patterns and causes or prevents winter depression and all that. With a tablet, you usually will be exposing little more than the retina around your "yellow spot" while with using lenses and all, I think you might be exposing a lot more of the peripheral areas of your retina as well. There could be a significant difference in how that influences your melatonin levels. Yes, it's true that the amount of "blueish" light over a certain threshold that hits your retina influences your melatonin production and sleeping patterns. However, the actual amount that hits your retina when using a tablet and where it hits will be a significant factor in that. If the results of this study this were true, people looking at LCD televisions and LCD computer screen would also not be sleeping at night, nor would they be suffering from winter depression. I think there is plenty of statistic evidence that whoever conducted this study, must have done something wrong to come up with these results.
Well, if there weren't any damages, why would this be news?
The app does little more than guide the user where and how to take samples. The rest is done "in the cloud". It should be trivial to port it.
They started their own country inside territory already belonging to the British Empire. How would you like it if for instance Alabama suddenly said they were independent? You don't just "start your own country" and not harm the country you previously belonged to.
They would have revealed who Georges spies in France were, if they'd have that information and a way to get it to the French. Getting that information from someone and getting it across would mean months of dangerous travel at the very least, with very little effect. The risk and effort were just not worth the trouble of an attempt.
Emerrassing details aplenty in those days. They just weren't written down in official documents or published in newspapers. Go check the internet about the sexual relations and mistresses and all that of the UK monarchy and the US founding fathers if such things interest you. I can assure you that the gossip circuit in those days was probably bigger and more influential than it was now, since people didn't have a lot of independent sources to verify the word of mouth information they got.
Taking up arms was the most effective way to do things back then. Maybe it still is, maybe today the pen or the voting ballot is mightier than the sword.
Taking a stab at Mannings personality is cheap. Sure, he did do things that were illegal and probably wrong. I'm sure you've done a few wrong things in your life. Even if I knew what those were and what your personality is, pointing out the latter wouldn't make me a better person, nor make you a worse one.
Manning may have uncovered a lot of things that should never have happened. However, he did leak a lot of secret information. If you look at the sheer volume of it, most of it wasn't "wrongdoing" and should have remained secret regardless. So he also did do a lot of wrong here, even if he intended it to be "the right thing". True, not a lot of big secrets were revealed, but someone in that position should not be leaking information, period.
I don't think there is evidence that Manning tried to get the wrongdoers prosecuted using the methods that should be in place to do that. Is there? I'd love to read that. By exposing them without doing that first, he was judge and jury himself, leaving the execution to the lynching mob that the press is in this case. I'm not saying those people were innocent, but laws, judges and all that exist for a very good reason and he chose to ignore that.
The enemy of my enemy is just that, he is not my friend nor is he my foe. He may have believed he did the right thing, but he did a lot of wrong things trying to do so. That doesn't mean he deserves what he is getting now. Just like everyone else, he deserves a fair trail and a humane treatment. If there is an existing medical condition that made him act the way he did, or had a big influence on how his thought patterns work, that should be considered in that fair trial.
So basically, he was what all dev-ops want to be when they grow up?
No that was Lance Armstrong, Louis won the french cycling competition.
You pay with high phone prices and little invention and development on them.
Nobody thought this could be turned into a guided missile, have they? It won't take more than a few weeks before some robber will drive it through the front of some store to get inside.
The US has become a corpocracy with just two parties that only marginally differ in reality. The only real difference is how much the companies pay the representatives in "election funds" and not in what they actually decide. If you want change, change your legal representation and make sure actual good laws get passed. Obama's medicare bill wasn't the best on the planet to start with, it got worse with all the compromises, but at least it's an attempt and it may actually proof itself in the future. It is evident that this is the best that the USA can come up with and that this is what the USA voters chose.How about making an actual change and not complain about how bad the government the US chose themselves is doing? If you don't like your government, change it, don't whine that they can't do it right. You chose them, you deal with the consequences. The USA should be able to get every inhabitant of the USA proper medical care for less than what is spent now, there's plenty of proof in other countries. If they can't establish that, they have only themselves to blame.
From what I understand, the maximum penalty he could receive is less than the time he already served "in custody" in the UK, plus a rather small fine, relatively speaking. Also, he is not wanted for a trial, but only for questioning. The Swedish police so far have not taken up the invitation to question Assange in the UK, personally, via teleconference or in writing. Even if he was extradited and went to trial in Sweden and indeed found guilty, they could only make him pay the small fine, since the time he spent in custody in the UK will count as well. The whole "witch hunt" has no merit, he already went to jail, is being restricted against his will for a long period and I doubt that he'd mind paying the fine if the result would be that he'd be able to walk around free again. Things just don't add up, there must be an alternate agenda behind all this. Don't get me wrong, this is not about Assange being right or innocent, this is about an extradition request that makes no sense.
First of all, skimming forums for feedback about the changes in Gnome3 gives you zero people that appear coherent throughout their posts that actually like the changes, apart from some Gnome3 developers. Go figure. The amount of people bitching about not being able to do things window managers have given people since TWM and CDE were the latest thing is simply overwhelming.
Second of all, tablets may be getting more popular, but you're replacing desktop user interfaces so at the very least, retain the features, possibly configurable, that make up a decent desktop window manager. For instance, no screen saver configuration or selection? What?? No hot corner selection? You need third party plugins to get you an icon you can click once to open applications?
You may be right about making assumptions, but it's not this guys task to do research in to what users want and how they like the changes. That task is for the gnome development team and they haven't done that ever. Not before, not during and not after the release of Gnome3.
Now what case can be made for gnome3 changes? I haven't seen one tablet manufacturer that adapted Gnome3 as their UI, I've seen literally hundreds of users complain, I haven't seen more than a handful people that like the changes, most of them being Gnome3 developers and thus biased. If you want a case to be made for the Gnome3 changes, why don't you do so yourself instead of blaming other people they're not doing it for you? What are those merits you are talking about? How much users has "gnome" gained since the introduction of Gnome3? I'm willing to bet the absolute number user base has dropped, while both Win7 and OSX have grown, so comparing Gnome3 to those makes Gnome3 look bad.
Oracle comes to mind.
Up this guy
You can get a CVE nuber reserved for your vulnerability I believe? I guess you could give a description at that moment and publicly open the CVE later on?
Sure the market can get volitile but most companies in the S&P 500 actually do have value..
The perceived value and actual value are usually not even close to each other. It used to be, a long time ago, that you'd want to see a companies value as what their actual assets were worth, plus a limited amount of what "goodwill" and "market potential" would gain in the future. However, if the dividents and stock price raise due to just these factors wasn't absolutely certain to double your money in 10 years, the stock would be too expensive.
These days, it's all about what people think the market sentiment will do to the price and stock prices easily go over 40 annual profits for companies that own very little assets themselves. Really, if you were doing this for "long term guaranteed investment" your money would be safer in a savings account where sentiment isn't the main contributor to the value of your investment.
There is never a barrier if the terrorist is determined enough. You are only putting up barriers for yourself if you want to try and prevent every conceivable form of terrorism. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
What forbidden words? Freedom of speech? What is it with the USA that they actually tolerate this "forbidden words" thing?
I sit in highly unergonomic positions but still don't experience any pain.
Say that again in 10 years time. Don't do it, you will wear down just like people doing manual labor like cobbling or working with pneumatic jackhammers and such. Get a decent desk, put the top of the screen at eye level, make sure you don't have to squint or bend over to read it, even after sitting behind the computer all day. If you have to, get glasses, a better screen or use a larger font. Most important, just don't sit behind a computer for long days, keep away from the screen for longer periods and get your body excersized in between your computer sessions. Just walking to the fridge to get a snack doesn't count.
Why would you want such a thing? Humans can't read it and it sounds like criminals can easily swap tags or fake tags if they want to disguise themselves. License plates at least gave you the option to report a driver that caused an accident. At best, this is useful for statistics about vehicle usage, not for individual tracking, taxing or that sort of thing.
Because the HF has harmonics that are in the audible spectrum as well. Not only that, but it "dampens" the amount of dB you have left for signal/noise ratio. You can try and use a low-pass filter to filter it out, but since those are analog, they will also filter out part of the audible spectrum and not filter out all the hf noise, just dampen it.
It should be called high frequency gambling and taxed as such. It has nothing to do with the (perceived) value but only with a gamble on what the sentiment and competing algorithms will produce as the next stock or derivative price.
Any derivative trade and any stock trade that is done within 28 days of purchase should be taxed as gambling. It's nothing more or less than that so it's fair if these big online casino's get their profits taxed so the rest of us can profit too.
It takes 3-5 years to field test this stuff. It takes years of preparation after the final decision of what hardware to use before you get to launch the thing and after that, to get it to mars. You are looking at the best of the best, proven technology hardware available for this sort of radiation tolerance at the moment they had the last opportunity to make design changes.
One does not simply fly to Mars.