The regulation requires that any paper supported to any extent by NIH and published after April 2008 be made accessible to the public, with free links from the publicly accessible Pubmed database. NIH enforces this be requiring grant applicants to submit evidence that they are in compliance for any of their own papers that they cite. Journals can request at most a 1-year window of exclusivity before the requirement goes into effect
I've had the formatting of old Word files end up so mangled as to be unreadable. Of course, Word has never been all that reliable in rendering its own files even when they are current.
I doubt it. I suspect there will, for at least another decade, be at least some subset of the TVs out there that provide analog composite video (and perhaps S-Video) in
As I said, I expect most TVs in the near future to have only HDMI, composite, and RF. Composite and RF will persist because of the huge number of legacy devices still in circulation. But probably not s-video. It never had more than marginal popularity as a videophile format, offering a barely perceptible improvement in picture quality visible on higher quality displays. But the videophiles have moved on to significantly higher definition formats, and few of the people still running analog devices are all that picky about picture quality. Component will linger a while longer on TV sets (my new Panasonic plasma has only one component port; the TV it replaced had two) because it is HD capable, and a lot of people will not be eager to replace component devices with HDMI for the modest improvement in picture quality, but it is quickly vanishing from other devices. DVI is pretty much gone.
Within a couple of years, I expect that VGA inputs will have vanished on almost all TVs. My new Panasonic plasma doesn't have one. It also lacks s-video, and has only a single component input. I expect that it won't be very long before most TVs have only HDMI, composite, and RF.
Right. However, what the anti-correlation does show is that any hypothetical pro-violence effect of video games must be so small that it is utterly swamped by other social and demographic factors that impact violent crime.
They have proprietary system that is designed to be very costly to leave. In order for someone to decide to abandon Apple, they have to be first comfortable with losing any access to whatever DRM laden purchases they've made and be willing to flush all of that money down the toilet and spend it all over again.
Oh, you mean like a Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft game system?
But there is one big difference. I do lose the entire value of my games if I abandon those companies. There are not games available for any of those systems without DRM, and there is very little that I can do with them other than play games (except for playing blu-ray on the PS3). But there is plenty of content available for Apple products that either free (so not "costly" in any sense), or not restricted by Apple's DRM. Almost all of the music in my iTunes was ripped directly from CDs. Some of it is mp3's purchased from Amazon. On my appleTV, I can watch movies from Netflix (which has Netflix's DRM, but not Apple's; I could use other devices if I wanted to).
Blow Netflix and the other guys away by building in Apple TV? But a big part of the appeal of Apple TV is that it is an excellent Netflix client. These days, lots of TVs come with online capability and the ability to access services like Netflix and Amazon TV. At this point, Apple brings two things to the table with Apple TV: iTunes, and the ability to send video and music to your TV. Neither is compelling enough to sell me an Apple-branded TV set.
What would make such a set appealing? First off, it would need to be a fully fledged iOS device. That's not currently true of the Apple TV set-top box, because it can't (yet?) access the AppStore. It would need to run most existing iPhone/iPad apps with at most minor updates. That implies touch input. So the Apple iTV would come with some kind of touch pad remote, and should be able to use an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch as a touch pad remote. Apple should provide developer support for iApps that use the iTV and other iDevices simultaneously (e.g. for games).
And of course, it would still need to be a good TV.
I knew about the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that followed it because I was a history student. The historical record is rock solid. You won't find a serious historian who doubts them.
What is "rock solid" is that there was a medieval warm period in Europe. This is accepted by everybody, including climate scientists. What is not rock solid is exactly how warm it was in degrees, and whether it was a global phenomenon or merely regional.
I used to believe that CO2 could cause global warming but didn't think too deeply about it. Then they tried to erase the Medieval Warm Period. That got my attention and 'Global Warming' has become a bit of a hobby for me.
I've noticed that some people who want to reject CO2 as a cause of global warming seem to become very obsessed with the "Medieval Warm Period."
Thinking about it rationally, it is an odd obsession. After all, even if some other cause produced warming back during the medieval period, that does not disprove that CO2 could produce warming today. Indeed, it would make a rational person even more concerned about climate change. We know that CO2 can warm climate, but what if there is some other unknown cause other than CO2 that could warm the climate? Then we have to worry that the mysterious medieval warming factor could unexpectedly kick in on top of CO2 induced warming, causing temperatures to shoot up even higher than projected from models that only consider CO2 as a cause of warming during the next century or so. That could be a real disaster. So a rational person who believed in unexplained global warming during the medieval period should be even more anxious to stop the rise in CO2. Yet somehow, the Medieval Warmists always seem to end up concluding that CO2 is nothing to worry about it.
And then, why you look into it, you find out that the Medieval Warm Period is far less well clear than the Medieval Warmists seem to believe. After all, there were no thermometers back then, so estimates of the temperature back then are all based on indirect measures like tree rings and historical accounts of which plants were raised where, all of which are subject to huge uncertainty. And it becomes even more doubtful if you try to find evidence as to whether the medieval warming was just regional to those parts of the world were temperatures are strongly influenced by Atlantic ocean currents, or whether it was truly global. Yet the Medieval Warmists seem to regard the warmth of that period as more certain than the modern warming trend--which exceeds even the warmest medieval estimates, and is backed up by a huge number of different types of world-wide measurements. And if any new study suggests that medieval temperatures were a bit less than previously thought, the Medieval Warmists respond with outrage, insisting that "they" are trying to "erase" the Medieval warm period.
That we've been in a cooling period since 1998 that has reversed ALL of the observed warming that took place previously in the early 20th Century and more.
Actually, the PS3 is an extremely good upscaling DVD player, better in this respect than most low-cost dedicated DVD and blu-ray players.
But while it made sense for PS3 to incorporate blu-ray as a strategy to promote the system, it also slowed the adoption of the PS3 as a gaming system due to its high cost.
At the present time, I agree with Nintendo. Most customers can already play DVDs and many can already play blu-ray, so lower cost will bring in more customers than adding this capability.
Anti-piracy measures are not intended to be absolutely impregnable (which, realistically, is not possible), any more than the lock on your front door. The idea is primarily to make piracy inconvenient, so that most people don't bother.
Could be? Undoubtedly. But with history as guide, I can confidently predict that it won't be. Such peripherals never achieve more than minor market penetration. And game development projects are invariably time and money constrained, so a feature like this is competing for development effort with features that appeal to a broader market segment.
Apple had explicitly suggested that developers who don't like Apple's terms for apps, so I doubt if this was a major factor. But it was always clear that the rules would have to be modified, because as previously formatted, they would have required firms like Amazon, which already had an efficient system for selling content to pay a hefty price for a service that they didn't really need, and a Web Kindle app would not be and adequate substitute for the Kindle app. Forcing the Kindle app off of iOS would have caused a major backlash from consumers who bought Apple products in the expectation that they would be able tom access their substantial Kindle libraries.
These are available, but such add-ons are never a big success, because they never achieve enough market penetration to get developers to design games that really take advantage of them. Much of the appeal of a phone is that it's so easy to carry that it's always with you; most people are not going to want to carry around a peripheral as well
Some game designs work really well with touch--things like Angry Birds, Cut the Rope. It gives a real immediacy of interaction. Most traditional game designs are a poor fit, though, because complex controls are really awkward when the view is also the control pad.
I think what Carmack is seeing is the versatility of the Nintendo U design. The controller can be a private strategy screen for competitive games (e.g. Football plays). It can be a zoom sniper scope for FPS. It can be an always available inventory or spell menu for RPG. It can be a straight touch pad for gesture control. Once again, Nintendo has keyed into the potential for controller design to drive innovation. But to actually sell the thing, they'll need compelling games to demonstrate the potential of the platform to users and to developers who aren't quite as savvy as Carmack.
This hurts Apple, because Apple gets a cut of in-app sales, and because lawsuits of this kind hurt app development for Apple products, which hurts product sales. So purely from self-interest, it seems virtually certain that Apple will sue Lodsys. If Lodsys actually had a good case, Apple would probably be willing to pay the licensing fee, but Apple's view is that they have already paid it. The fact that Lodsys has chosen to sue small developers without the resources to fight in court, rather than Apple, suggests that Lodsys is aware that their case is weak, and are hoping to extort some money from the little guys before Apple shuts them down.
It's very different from Global Warming. In the case of CO2-induced Global Warming, there is a well established physical mechanism and theory, a century old, that has been extensively validated by laboratory and observational studies. There are huge number of observational studies, by independent scientists from all over the world, using a variety of different methodologies, indicating that the predicted consequence is occurring.
In the case of microwave induced cancer, we have no evidence of any plausible mechanism, and observational evidence does not indicate that the predicted consequence is occurring, as there has been no increase in brain cancer incidence or deaths.
Being exposed to radiation between 1 meter and 1 millimeter, less energetic than the harmless visible, is known to be hazardous. We call them micro waves.
Sorry, but this is a really dumb remark. Did you ever hear of an "Easy Bake" oven? In fact, visible light can harm you in exactly the same way as microwaves. It is purely a matter of energy and heat dissipation. If I put you in a box with a few thousand watts of visible light, you will be just as cooked as if you were in a microwave oven at the same wattage. There is only one known mechanism whereby electromagnetic radiation of frequency too low to break molecular bonds can cause biological damage, and that is to pump in energy faster than the body can dissipate it as heat. If you do that, you will warm up and eventually cook. Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the alleged danger of low intensity microwave energy, where the energy flux is far, far below the body's heat dissipation capacity.
Ultraviolet radiation, of course, does have enough photon energy to break molecular bonds, but the energy of microwave photons is orders of magnitude lower. In fact, the energy of a microwave photon is on the same order as the energy of the random Brownian molecular impacts that every molecule of every cell experiences constantly. As a result, it would be a remarkable biological achievement if an organism were to evolve the ability to even detect low intensity microwaves. It would have to have some way of preserving that tiny amount of energy--too small to break any bonds, at most able to jiggle or twist them a bit--and isolate it from the huge background of similar energy Brownian noise, and do so long enough for some protein or other biological molecule to react and trigger the use of biological energy to make some sort of persistent change in the cell.
Meanwhile, of course, despite a huge increase in the use of cell phones, there has been no increase in the overall incidence or death rate of brain cancer.
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. In this case we have a remarkable claim, no plausible mechanism, and evidence that can most charitably be termed ambiguous.
Government certainly can and does do things like this. The GAO does a pretty good job when it comes to financial matters. And then there is the National Academy of Science, established by Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on scientific matters. They have remained independent and one of the most respected sources of scientific information in the world.
But no agency, no matter how authoritative or independent, will convince the cranks. Think of how much "global warming is a conspiracy" nonsense one sees in the media and hears from politicians, even though the National Academies have reviewed the science and concluded that the threat is real and that action is needed. The cranks just assume that anybody who disagrees with them is part of the conspiracy.
So the software will need to be designed to stream texts and presentations in manageable "chunks" rather than everything at once. For a system that is designed to always be connected to the net, this doesn't sound too hard to implement.
"Everything has always been like this" is a great null hypothesis, not only because it's neutral, but because the evidence doesn't support it.
Certainly, which is why it is discussed in conventional teaching of evolution or cosmology. But the null hypothesis of a static universe or planet is of no interest to advocates of "intelligent design," because it doesn't give their own favored narrative privileged status. The strategy used almost universally by advocates of pseudosciences such as "intelligent design" is to avoid formulating a testable (and thus potentially refutable) hypothesis, and to focus entirely upon scattershot attacks on the accepted theory (the notorious "Gish Gallop" ). The underlying assumption is that there are only two alternatives, so they do not have to support their own claim, but only find fault with evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
The regulation requires that any paper supported to any extent by NIH and published after April 2008 be made accessible to the public, with free links from the publicly accessible Pubmed database. NIH enforces this be requiring grant applicants to submit evidence that they are in compliance for any of their own papers that they cite. Journals can request at most a 1-year window of exclusivity before the requirement goes into effect
I've had the formatting of old Word files end up so mangled as to be unreadable. Of course, Word has never been all that reliable in rendering its own files even when they are current.
As I said, I expect most TVs in the near future to have only HDMI, composite, and RF. Composite and RF will persist because of the huge number of legacy devices still in circulation. But probably not s-video. It never had more than marginal popularity as a videophile format, offering a barely perceptible improvement in picture quality visible on higher quality displays. But the videophiles have moved on to significantly higher definition formats, and few of the people still running analog devices are all that picky about picture quality. Component will linger a while longer on TV sets (my new Panasonic plasma has only one component port; the TV it replaced had two) because it is HD capable, and a lot of people will not be eager to replace component devices with HDMI for the modest improvement in picture quality, but it is quickly vanishing from other devices. DVI is pretty much gone.
Like, you know, connected to a computer on your lap.
Within a couple of years, I expect that VGA inputs will have vanished on almost all TVs. My new Panasonic plasma doesn't have one. It also lacks s-video, and has only a single component input. I expect that it won't be very long before most TVs have only HDMI, composite, and RF.
Right. However, what the anti-correlation does show is that any hypothetical pro-violence effect of video games must be so small that it is utterly swamped by other social and demographic factors that impact violent crime.
Oh, you mean like a Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft game system?
But there is one big difference. I do lose the entire value of my games if I abandon those companies. There are not games available for any of those systems without DRM, and there is very little that I can do with them other than play games (except for playing blu-ray on the PS3). But there is plenty of content available for Apple products that either free (so not "costly" in any sense), or not restricted by Apple's DRM. Almost all of the music in my iTunes was ripped directly from CDs. Some of it is mp3's purchased from Amazon. On my appleTV, I can watch movies from Netflix (which has Netflix's DRM, but not Apple's; I could use other devices if I wanted to).
Blow Netflix and the other guys away by building in Apple TV? But a big part of the appeal of Apple TV is that it is an excellent Netflix client. These days, lots of TVs come with online capability and the ability to access services like Netflix and Amazon TV. At this point, Apple brings two things to the table with Apple TV: iTunes, and the ability to send video and music to your TV. Neither is compelling enough to sell me an Apple-branded TV set.
What would make such a set appealing? First off, it would need to be a fully fledged iOS device. That's not currently true of the Apple TV set-top box, because it can't (yet?) access the AppStore. It would need to run most existing iPhone/iPad apps with at most minor updates. That implies touch input. So the Apple iTV would come with some kind of touch pad remote, and should be able to use an iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch as a touch pad remote. Apple should provide developer support for iApps that use the iTV and other iDevices simultaneously (e.g. for games).
And of course, it would still need to be a good TV.
What is "rock solid" is that there was a medieval warm period in Europe. This is accepted by everybody, including climate scientists. What is not rock solid is exactly how warm it was in degrees, and whether it was a global phenomenon or merely regional.
I've noticed that some people who want to reject CO2 as a cause of global warming seem to become very obsessed with the "Medieval Warm Period."
Thinking about it rationally, it is an odd obsession. After all, even if some other cause produced warming back during the medieval period, that does not disprove that CO2 could produce warming today. Indeed, it would make a rational person even more concerned about climate change. We know that CO2 can warm climate, but what if there is some other unknown cause other than CO2 that could warm the climate? Then we have to worry that the mysterious medieval warming factor could unexpectedly kick in on top of CO2 induced warming, causing temperatures to shoot up even higher than projected from models that only consider CO2 as a cause of warming during the next century or so. That could be a real disaster. So a rational person who believed in unexplained global warming during the medieval period should be even more anxious to stop the rise in CO2. Yet somehow, the Medieval Warmists always seem to end up concluding that CO2 is nothing to worry about it.
And then, why you look into it, you find out that the Medieval Warm Period is far less well clear than the Medieval Warmists seem to believe. After all, there were no thermometers back then, so estimates of the temperature back then are all based on indirect measures like tree rings and historical accounts of which plants were raised where, all of which are subject to huge uncertainty. And it becomes even more doubtful if you try to find evidence as to whether the medieval warming was just regional to those parts of the world were temperatures are strongly influenced by Atlantic ocean currents, or whether it was truly global. Yet the Medieval Warmists seem to regard the warmth of that period as more certain than the modern warming trend--which exceeds even the warmest medieval estimates, and is backed up by a huge number of different types of world-wide measurements. And if any new study suggests that medieval temperatures were a bit less than previously thought, the Medieval Warmists respond with outrage, insisting that "they" are trying to "erase" the Medieval warm period.
Wow, that's a remarkable claim. I wonder if it's true? Let me Google that for you.
Guess not...
Actually, the PS3 is an extremely good upscaling DVD player, better in this respect than most low-cost dedicated DVD and blu-ray players.
But while it made sense for PS3 to incorporate blu-ray as a strategy to promote the system, it also slowed the adoption of the PS3 as a gaming system due to its high cost.
At the present time, I agree with Nintendo. Most customers can already play DVDs and many can already play blu-ray, so lower cost will bring in more customers than adding this capability.
The issue with the XBox 260 was not so much that it did not include wifi as that the dongle was nonstandard and grossly overpriced.
Anti-piracy measures are not intended to be absolutely impregnable (which, realistically, is not possible), any more than the lock on your front door. The idea is primarily to make piracy inconvenient, so that most people don't bother.
Could be? Undoubtedly. But with history as guide, I can confidently predict that it won't be. Such peripherals never achieve more than minor market penetration. And game development projects are invariably time and money constrained, so a feature like this is competing for development effort with features that appeal to a broader market segment.
Apple had explicitly suggested that developers who don't like Apple's terms for apps, so I doubt if this was a major factor. But it was always clear that the rules would have to be modified, because as previously formatted, they would have required firms like Amazon, which already had an efficient system for selling content to pay a hefty price for a service that they didn't really need, and a Web Kindle app would not be and adequate substitute for the Kindle app. Forcing the Kindle app off of iOS would have caused a major backlash from consumers who bought Apple products in the expectation that they would be able tom access their substantial Kindle libraries.
These are available, but such add-ons are never a big success, because they never achieve enough market penetration to get developers to design games that really take advantage of them. Much of the appeal of a phone is that it's so easy to carry that it's always with you; most people are not going to want to carry around a peripheral as well
Some game designs work really well with touch--things like Angry Birds, Cut the Rope. It gives a real immediacy of interaction. Most traditional game designs are a poor fit, though, because complex controls are really awkward when the view is also the control pad.
I think what Carmack is seeing is the versatility of the Nintendo U design. The controller can be a private strategy screen for competitive games (e.g. Football plays). It can be a zoom sniper scope for FPS. It can be an always available inventory or spell menu for RPG. It can be a straight touch pad for gesture control. Once again, Nintendo has keyed into the potential for controller design to drive innovation. But to actually sell the thing, they'll need compelling games to demonstrate the potential of the platform to users and to developers who aren't quite as savvy as Carmack.
This hurts Apple, because Apple gets a cut of in-app sales, and because lawsuits of this kind hurt app development for Apple products, which hurts product sales. So purely from self-interest, it seems virtually certain that Apple will sue Lodsys. If Lodsys actually had a good case, Apple would probably be willing to pay the licensing fee, but Apple's view is that they have already paid it. The fact that Lodsys has chosen to sue small developers without the resources to fight in court, rather than Apple, suggests that Lodsys is aware that their case is weak, and are hoping to extort some money from the little guys before Apple shuts them down.
It's very different from Global Warming. In the case of CO2-induced Global Warming, there is a well established physical mechanism and theory, a century old, that has been extensively validated by laboratory and observational studies. There are huge number of observational studies, by independent scientists from all over the world, using a variety of different methodologies, indicating that the predicted consequence is occurring.
In the case of microwave induced cancer, we have no evidence of any plausible mechanism, and observational evidence does not indicate that the predicted consequence is occurring, as there has been no increase in brain cancer incidence or deaths.
Sorry, but this is a really dumb remark. Did you ever hear of an "Easy Bake" oven? In fact, visible light can harm you in exactly the same way as microwaves. It is purely a matter of energy and heat dissipation. If I put you in a box with a few thousand watts of visible light, you will be just as cooked as if you were in a microwave oven at the same wattage. There is only one known mechanism whereby electromagnetic radiation of frequency too low to break molecular bonds can cause biological damage, and that is to pump in energy faster than the body can dissipate it as heat. If you do that, you will warm up and eventually cook. Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the alleged danger of low intensity microwave energy, where the energy flux is far, far below the body's heat dissipation capacity.
Ultraviolet radiation, of course, does have enough photon energy to break molecular bonds, but the energy of microwave photons is orders of magnitude lower. In fact, the energy of a microwave photon is on the same order as the energy of the random Brownian molecular impacts that every molecule of every cell experiences constantly. As a result, it would be a remarkable biological achievement if an organism were to evolve the ability to even detect low intensity microwaves. It would have to have some way of preserving that tiny amount of energy--too small to break any bonds, at most able to jiggle or twist them a bit--and isolate it from the huge background of similar energy Brownian noise, and do so long enough for some protein or other biological molecule to react and trigger the use of biological energy to make some sort of persistent change in the cell.
Meanwhile, of course, despite a huge increase in the use of cell phones, there has been no increase in the overall incidence or death rate of brain cancer.
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. In this case we have a remarkable claim, no plausible mechanism, and evidence that can most charitably be termed ambiguous.
The shielding of a microwave is designed to prevent it from cooking you, not to block the tiny bit of leakage that interferes with wifi
Government certainly can and does do things like this. The GAO does a pretty good job when it comes to financial matters. And then there is the National Academy of Science, established by Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on scientific matters. They have remained independent and one of the most respected sources of scientific information in the world.
But no agency, no matter how authoritative or independent, will convince the cranks. Think of how much "global warming is a conspiracy" nonsense one sees in the media and hears from politicians, even though the National Academies have reviewed the science and concluded that the threat is real and that action is needed. The cranks just assume that anybody who disagrees with them is part of the conspiracy.
So the software will need to be designed to stream texts and presentations in manageable "chunks" rather than everything at once. For a system that is designed to always be connected to the net, this doesn't sound too hard to implement.
Certainly, which is why it is discussed in conventional teaching of evolution or cosmology. But the null hypothesis of a static universe or planet is of no interest to advocates of "intelligent design," because it doesn't give their own favored narrative privileged status. The strategy used almost universally by advocates of pseudosciences such as "intelligent design" is to avoid formulating a testable (and thus potentially refutable) hypothesis, and to focus entirely upon scattershot attacks on the accepted theory (the notorious "Gish Gallop" ). The underlying assumption is that there are only two alternatives, so they do not have to support their own claim, but only find fault with evolution.