You can rather easily run Debian on the thing with support for all of the non-architecture specific packages that you'd find on an equivalent machine running another architecture; I had quite a few of them around at one point.
That said, you really should strongly consider not running the machine unless you have a very specific use for it; there are many lower powered machines which won't waste as much eneergy and will provide equivalent functionality.
But what do you do when you complain about an officer making threats to arrest photographers and the chief tells you he's right and you better comply or you will be arrested?
That's why I mentioned the ombudsman or retaining legal counsel. It may certainly be more effective if you are arrested, but you don't have to be arrested to have your civil liberties abridged.
Here in MD, an audio recording could get you into actual legal trouble, which is a ridiculous side effect of our wiretapping laws.
What's amusing is that MD doesn't actually disallow audio recordings when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy... but presumably an officer who objected to photographs would also object to being recorded. Ah, the modern police state...
Yeah, you might be far from home, just waiting for a train to get you out of there. In that case, shutting up and being cowardly may be advisable.
What may also work is to just start recording the confrontation, be as compliant as possible, get as much information from the officer as possible, and avoid escalation. When the interaction is over, contact the ombudsman and/or an attorney, and use all legal recourses available to you to make sure that others don't get treated similarly.
You should be able to avoid arrest, and still later stand up for your rights. (You also have the advantage of not having any charges to counteract the effect of your complaint.)
if solar was halfway economical they would be protesting them because they were "ruining" the beauty/ecosystem of the desert
Actually, there already are groups who are concerned about solar in the desert, precisely because of the harm the vehicles and associated traffic can cause to desert tortoises and other fauna which are relatively fragile.
First, he DID cause the mob to gather. He was hosting a concert. He did not, however, ask the mob to become unruly.
Since he may very well have been negligent in starting the event by failing to provide for sufficient security et al., he may well be contributing to the unruliness of the mob.
Second, asking someone to refrain from committing a crime is not akin to admitting that you caused them to start committing a crime.
A police officer having someone tell someone else to stop committing a crime because the police officer believes the person committing a crime is an associate of the person they ask to stop may be admitting to a crime. Talking to a police officer or making admissions or statements without the advice of your attorney is a bad idea.
Of course, taking my advice without talking to an attorney isn't such a hot idea either.
I've done this very successfully using liver instead of spit.
You'll probably also have good results using strawberries or other similarly massively polyploid fruit. (They're good because they're often more than 4N, and don't have as much cellulose as some other things. (And they certainly taste better than liver, IMO.)
Pray tell then, how do you get a bunch of PhDs to review
something out of their jerk-circle seriously?
If I'm personally asked to review something, and I'm actually an
expert on the topic that I'm reviewing, I generally review it. If it's
outside of my realm of expertise, I generally try to recommend someone
else to review it, because I won't be able to do so competently.
Almost everyone who reviews for major journals does the same.
Now, if you're asking how you can get someone who is an
expert in a field of knowledge to verbosely debunk something in that
field for you, I find lots of beer to be effective.
Problem is, he doesn't specify which labs use more SNPs or
"more useful" SNPs (which as you mentioned, should provide better/more
accurate results).
Primarily because it's not known yet for a large number of
diseases.
The point of experiments and tests should be to draw some
conclusion (even if the conclusion is that all fail) but clearly some
services are performing better than others and are turning out more
accurate. Why does he not state, in his professional and unbiased
opinion, which one is better?
Because most of the diseases that people actually care about
haven't yet been completely characterized there's no way for anyone to
even determine how well they are performing. The studies that are
going into this (Genome-wide association studies) are still in their
relative infancy and we've only been able to find the causative
alleles in a few genes for a few diseases at this point in time.
In the future, when more is known, it will be relatively simple to
produce a kit which actually looks at the exact SNPs which are
directly associated with disease, and then we can analyze their
effectiveness at predicting the actual presence and onset of disease.
Fired? PhD students aren't employees, they're
students.
They're often both. If they're receiving money from grants or being
paid to be a TA, then they can be fired. They also can be told not to
enter the lab in which they were doing their thesis project,
effectively halting their PhD. (Because the work of graduate students
who falsify data ultimately casts aspersions on the PI as well, PIs
typically act immediately to investigate such occurances, and take
strong action to curtail such problems.)
Now what mechanism is in place to check up and verify
everything they do?
It's not possible to verify every experiment that is run and every
conclusion that is reached. That said, major experiments and
conclusions are re-run and re-tested at various levels all of the
time. Science is constantly building upon the results of previous
experiments, and it tends to become fairly obvious if an important
conclusion is wrongly reached because no one is able to replicate it
or people find evidence that directly contradicts it.
In fact, one of the quickest ways to gain a name for oneself (and
occasionally, a major prize) is to show conclusively that something
that was previously thought to be the case was, in fact, wrong.
Scientists are constantly finding that they were wrong (or at the very
least, not entirely right). It's a very boring week for me in science
if I haven't found some paper or done an experiment that hasn't caused
me to alter my view of the world at least slightly.
Were is the regulation/punishment for breaking
regulations?
The deliberate falsification of data is one of the most heinous
things that a scientist can do scientifically. Individuals who are
caught (or often, even suspected) are ostracized and their entire
scientific output is brought into disrepute. They're generally fired
and let go from all of the positions they previously held. Because
data is the foundation on which scientists rely, deliberate
falsification or intentional obscuring of contrary results is taken
very seriously.
While you may not see it much as a layperson looking on from the
outside, from those of us on the inside, we're constantly on the
lookout for wrongly reached conclusions, whether reached by fraud or
by ignorance. (The latter is in my experience orders of magnitude more
prevalent than the former.)
And of course, calling it a GNU system is unbelievably arrogant. Why should it be called GNU/Linux, and not Debian/GNU/X.org/Apache/BSD/Linux?
Because it describes a particular flavor of Debian; we use GNU libc+userland (well, now embedded GNU libc) and the Linux kernel. We also distribute GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Hurd variants as well. If someone actually wanted to, ports using a different libc and userland could also be made, and would have a different nomenclature.
In the end though, it is what the Debian project has decided to call its particular port, so if you want to reduce ambiguity, that's what you should call it to.
For various reasons Debian will not go past 4.7 for a while yet.
Debian isn't even distributing 4.7p1 anywhere, anymore (Packages of 5.1 were released on the 25th of July, 2008). 5.1p1-5 is in all of stable, testing and unstable, and etch (oldstable) is running 4.3p2-9etch3.
That said, these are presumably all vulnerable, and patches which change the prefered cypher to non-vulnerable ones, and apply countermeasures by continuing to read until the maximum packet length is reached as detailed in the 5.2 release notes. There currently isn't a bug filed about it, but presumably someone will do so soon.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 1
You can talk about those issues belonging to that
developer if you are saying it in the context I described. If the
software developer's goal is to increase the marketshare of that
software, then the issues the users have become that developer's
problem.
That may be true, but since I reject your very premise, I didn't
even bother to address your conclusions.
I believe the real disconnect is between people that want
to develop the software and people that want to grow the marketshare
of a piece of software, or linux, or FOSS as a whole.
Sure; people who are interested in increasing market share (for
whatever reason) need to put in the effort to deal with the issues
required, both to increase market share, and that stem from increased
market share. There are some people who have done a huge amount of
work towards this end, but it always seems to be easier for people to
be vocal than to actually sit down and do the work. (I'd be very
surprised if the author of this article has actually contributed
meaningfully, for example.)
Re:Let me be the first critic
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The stated goal - at least from a large portion of the linux community - is to see as many people using Linux as possible.
The FOSS community has no "stated goals", so this certainly can't be one of them. Parts of the community have specific goals, for example the FSF wants Free Software everywhere, Debian wants to make the most technically excellent distribution possible, and I want to solve my problems.
To a lot of people actually doing the work, market share doesn't matter, and the sooner that you (and people who think that a goal should be market share) understand this, the happier and less frustrated you will be.
While there's certainly nothing wrong with having a goal of having more market share, but you can't force your goals onto other people.
Re:Nope, it's the putative new users problem
on
Linux Needs Critics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
At least, it is their problem if they want more people to
buy their MOBOs.
This is precisely where the disconnect is, and why you can't talk
about issues that a set of users have as being a problem that belongs
to a developer of a set of software that the user wants to use.
Because FOSS developers don't have a profit motive, things that you
would typically consider to be a problem for a company who wants to
ship lots of units aren't a problem for a FOSS developer. A failure to
understand the motives of the developers who are actually doing the
work is just going to annoy the developers and the people who think
that the developers should solve the user's problems.
This very thread is a classic example of this misunderstanding, as
it's seeking to figure out whose problem it is, or who is at fault, so
they can be browbeaten into submission. What should be done instead is
to identify the problem, and figure out how you can get people who can
solve the problem to want to solve the problem. Sometimes that often
means recognizing that the person who can solve the problem is
yourself, and getting yourself to solve it by learning about the
problem is the way to solve the problem. In cases when it isn't,
making it as easy, as fun, and as painless as possible for the FOSS
developers who can is what you want to do.
After all, if a FOSS developer isn't having fun solving your
problem, why should they bother with it?
I don't see where provides evidence of its origin.
It's not actually necessary to wait for fossil evidence of the
origin. You can examine sequence similarity between the different
proteins that are involved in photosensing in single celled organisms
and multicellular organisms to point you on the way to seeing how at
least the components of eyes would have originated. (The actual
structure of organelles and proteins required to sense photons
accurately is far more difficult than the physical structure of the
eye.)
The very steps that were necessary in order for everything that
exists to evolve are written in the hereditary material that
everything schleps around, after all.
These aren't really weaknesses per se, but there are quite a few areas where we aren't yet sure exactly how specific structures of organisms came about, or what the ancestral species of certain species are.
There are also large areas of natural selection where we're still trying to figure out exactly how the selection occurs (that is, which environmental and organismal aspects actually matter for selection.) I'm certain someone who is actually an evolutionary biologist will have even more suggestions. (I'm a cell biologist who works primarily with humans and model systems for human diseases, so that's not me.;-))
The real issue is that there is currently no unambiguous method of
measuring the global temperature. Because of this, the degree of
interpretation required to actually test the hypothesis makes it very
difficult to make a strong case either way. When coupled with the
amount of money involved, (and perhaps the very continuance of our
planet as we now it) almost everyone has a stake. It becomes very easy
to politicize the process, because the scientific portion is so
murky.
Considering the degree of pushback on evolution, a theory which has
been tested in numerous places and has been well understood by
scientists for over a hundred years, it's not suprising that theories
involving climate change have an even higher degree of pushback.
There's little question that humans have some impact on the
environment, and certainly on climate, but we always end up back at
the big question: How can we mitigate the impact of humans to
acceptable levels while maintaining an achievable and sustainable
level of technological development and advancement?
For the journals I've dealt with, extra charges are only for colours in the printed version.
This is true for the most part, but it's a real pain to get a journal to take one version of a figure for publication online and in the pdf, and another to publish in the print version. So much so that I either pay the extra charges or don't publish in color.
Yes, but the immortal liver cells in this device could
very well be cancerous.
Sure, but they don't have to be. (Car analogy: Ferrari's are often
red, but they don't have to be.)
Isn't the most common method for immortalizing cell lines
in the lab to fuse the desired cell with cancer cells to form an
immortal hybrid (selecting for the hybrids by both immortality and a
genetic marker)?
Not really. What you're talking about is a hybridoma, which is
generally used in the formation of monoclonal antibodies. As far as
what method is actually used to produce the line, it really depends on
what you want a cell line for. (Cell lines are immortal by definition,
by the way; they don't get immortalized.)
Most common cell lines are actually just isolated from various
kinds of tumors, though.
Slashdot Mirror
You can rather easily run Debian on the thing with support for all of the non-architecture specific packages that you'd find on an equivalent machine running another architecture; I had quite a few of them around at one point.
That said, you really should strongly consider not running the machine unless you have a very specific use for it; there are many lower powered machines which won't waste as much eneergy and will provide equivalent functionality.
That's why I mentioned the ombudsman or retaining legal counsel. It may certainly be more effective if you are arrested, but you don't have to be arrested to have your civil liberties abridged.
What's amusing is that MD doesn't actually disallow audio recordings when there is no reasonable expectation of privacy... but presumably an officer who objected to photographs would also object to being recorded. Ah, the modern police state...
What may also work is to just start recording the confrontation, be as compliant as possible, get as much information from the officer as possible, and avoid escalation. When the interaction is over, contact the ombudsman and/or an attorney, and use all legal recourses available to you to make sure that others don't get treated similarly.
You should be able to avoid arrest, and still later stand up for your rights. (You also have the advantage of not having any charges to counteract the effect of your complaint.)
Actually, there already are groups who are concerned about solar in the desert, precisely because of the harm the vehicles and associated traffic can cause to desert tortoises and other fauna which are relatively fragile.
Since he may very well have been negligent in starting the event by failing to provide for sufficient security et al., he may well be contributing to the unruliness of the mob.
A police officer having someone tell someone else to stop committing a crime because the police officer believes the person committing a crime is an associate of the person they ask to stop may be admitting to a crime. Talking to a police officer or making admissions or statements without the advice of your attorney is a bad idea.
Of course, taking my advice without talking to an attorney isn't such a hot idea either.
So, you think that he should admit that he caused [a mob] to gather (that is, incited a riot) by trying to get them to disperse?
Thanks, but I'll be talking to my attorney first.
It's available in experimental. See packages.debian.org/iceweasel and bug #535192.
You'll probably also have good results using strawberries or other similarly massively polyploid fruit. (They're good because they're often more than 4N, and don't have as much cellulose as some other things. (And they certainly taste better than liver, IMO.)
If I'm personally asked to review something, and I'm actually an expert on the topic that I'm reviewing, I generally review it. If it's outside of my realm of expertise, I generally try to recommend someone else to review it, because I won't be able to do so competently. Almost everyone who reviews for major journals does the same.
Now, if you're asking how you can get someone who is an expert in a field of knowledge to verbosely debunk something in that field for you, I find lots of beer to be effective.
Primarily because it's not known yet for a large number of diseases.
Because most of the diseases that people actually care about haven't yet been completely characterized there's no way for anyone to even determine how well they are performing. The studies that are going into this (Genome-wide association studies) are still in their relative infancy and we've only been able to find the causative alleles in a few genes for a few diseases at this point in time.
In the future, when more is known, it will be relatively simple to produce a kit which actually looks at the exact SNPs which are directly associated with disease, and then we can analyze their effectiveness at predicting the actual presence and onset of disease.
They're often both. If they're receiving money from grants or being paid to be a TA, then they can be fired. They also can be told not to enter the lab in which they were doing their thesis project, effectively halting their PhD. (Because the work of graduate students who falsify data ultimately casts aspersions on the PI as well, PIs typically act immediately to investigate such occurances, and take strong action to curtail such problems.)
It's not possible to verify every experiment that is run and every conclusion that is reached. That said, major experiments and conclusions are re-run and re-tested at various levels all of the time. Science is constantly building upon the results of previous experiments, and it tends to become fairly obvious if an important conclusion is wrongly reached because no one is able to replicate it or people find evidence that directly contradicts it.
In fact, one of the quickest ways to gain a name for oneself (and occasionally, a major prize) is to show conclusively that something that was previously thought to be the case was, in fact, wrong. Scientists are constantly finding that they were wrong (or at the very least, not entirely right). It's a very boring week for me in science if I haven't found some paper or done an experiment that hasn't caused me to alter my view of the world at least slightly.
The deliberate falsification of data is one of the most heinous things that a scientist can do scientifically. Individuals who are caught (or often, even suspected) are ostracized and their entire scientific output is brought into disrepute. They're generally fired and let go from all of the positions they previously held. Because data is the foundation on which scientists rely, deliberate falsification or intentional obscuring of contrary results is taken very seriously.
While you may not see it much as a layperson looking on from the outside, from those of us on the inside, we're constantly on the lookout for wrongly reached conclusions, whether reached by fraud or by ignorance. (The latter is in my experience orders of magnitude more prevalent than the former.)
Or anyone who can arrange to get attorneys licensed to practice in the US to take up their case... which pretty much covers most of the planet.
Because it describes a particular flavor of Debian; we use GNU libc+userland (well, now embedded GNU libc) and the Linux kernel. We also distribute GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Hurd variants as well. If someone actually wanted to, ports using a different libc and userland could also be made, and would have a different nomenclature.
In the end though, it is what the Debian project has decided to call its particular port, so if you want to reduce ambiguity, that's what you should call it to.
Debian isn't even distributing 4.7p1 anywhere, anymore (Packages of 5.1 were released on the 25th of July, 2008). 5.1p1-5 is in all of stable, testing and unstable, and etch (oldstable) is running 4.3p2-9etch3.
That said, these are presumably all vulnerable, and patches which change the prefered cypher to non-vulnerable ones, and apply countermeasures by continuing to read until the maximum packet length is reached as detailed in the 5.2 release notes. There currently isn't a bug filed about it, but presumably someone will do so soon.
That may be true, but since I reject your very premise, I didn't even bother to address your conclusions.
Sure; people who are interested in increasing market share (for whatever reason) need to put in the effort to deal with the issues required, both to increase market share, and that stem from increased market share. There are some people who have done a huge amount of work towards this end, but it always seems to be easier for people to be vocal than to actually sit down and do the work. (I'd be very surprised if the author of this article has actually contributed meaningfully, for example.)
The FOSS community has no "stated goals", so this certainly can't be one of them. Parts of the community have specific goals, for example the FSF wants Free Software everywhere, Debian wants to make the most technically excellent distribution possible, and I want to solve my problems.
To a lot of people actually doing the work, market share doesn't matter, and the sooner that you (and people who think that a goal should be market share) understand this, the happier and less frustrated you will be.
While there's certainly nothing wrong with having a goal of having more market share, but you can't force your goals onto other people.
This is precisely where the disconnect is, and why you can't talk about issues that a set of users have as being a problem that belongs to a developer of a set of software that the user wants to use.
Because FOSS developers don't have a profit motive, things that you would typically consider to be a problem for a company who wants to ship lots of units aren't a problem for a FOSS developer. A failure to understand the motives of the developers who are actually doing the work is just going to annoy the developers and the people who think that the developers should solve the user's problems.
This very thread is a classic example of this misunderstanding, as it's seeking to figure out whose problem it is, or who is at fault, so they can be browbeaten into submission. What should be done instead is to identify the problem, and figure out how you can get people who can solve the problem to want to solve the problem. Sometimes that often means recognizing that the person who can solve the problem is yourself, and getting yourself to solve it by learning about the problem is the way to solve the problem. In cases when it isn't, making it as easy, as fun, and as painless as possible for the FOSS developers who can is what you want to do.
After all, if a FOSS developer isn't having fun solving your problem, why should they bother with it?
It's not actually necessary to wait for fossil evidence of the origin. You can examine sequence similarity between the different proteins that are involved in photosensing in single celled organisms and multicellular organisms to point you on the way to seeing how at least the components of eyes would have originated. (The actual structure of organelles and proteins required to sense photons accurately is far more difficult than the physical structure of the eye.)
The very steps that were necessary in order for everything that exists to evolve are written in the hereditary material that everything schleps around, after all.
These aren't really weaknesses per se, but there are quite a few areas where we aren't yet sure exactly how specific structures of organisms came about, or what the ancestral species of certain species are.
There are also large areas of natural selection where we're still trying to figure out exactly how the selection occurs (that is, which environmental and organismal aspects actually matter for selection.) I'm certain someone who is actually an evolutionary biologist will have even more suggestions. (I'm a cell biologist who works primarily with humans and model systems for human diseases, so that's not me. ;-))
The real issue is that there is currently no unambiguous method of measuring the global temperature. Because of this, the degree of interpretation required to actually test the hypothesis makes it very difficult to make a strong case either way. When coupled with the amount of money involved, (and perhaps the very continuance of our planet as we now it) almost everyone has a stake. It becomes very easy to politicize the process, because the scientific portion is so murky.
Considering the degree of pushback on evolution, a theory which has been tested in numerous places and has been well understood by scientists for over a hundred years, it's not suprising that theories involving climate change have an even higher degree of pushback.
There's little question that humans have some impact on the environment, and certainly on climate, but we always end up back at the big question: How can we mitigate the impact of humans to acceptable levels while maintaining an achievable and sustainable level of technological development and advancement?
Because people know about what a watt is, and they know how long an hour is? (It's not like you can't divide by 3600 to get J, or a Watt*Second.)
This is true for the most part, but it's a real pain to get a journal to take one version of a figure for publication online and in the pdf, and another to publish in the print version. So much so that I either pay the extra charges or don't publish in color.
Sure, but they don't have to be. (Car analogy: Ferrari's are often red, but they don't have to be.)
Not really. What you're talking about is a hybridoma, which is generally used in the formation of monoclonal antibodies. As far as what method is actually used to produce the line, it really depends on what you want a cell line for. (Cell lines are immortal by definition, by the way; they don't get immortalized.)
Most common cell lines are actually just isolated from various kinds of tumors, though.