Where in my post did I say that? I said it did very well the week before. I didn't say it was "doing great".
I didn't say it was doing great. But it's also not doing very poorly either, as the article and summary state. The article and summary are very slanted, they are cherry picking data and distorting info (like saying low prices are bad) in order to make things look worse than they are.
please, completely slanted article
on
Bad Signs For Blu-ray
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The week before, market share of BluRay was WAY up. BluRay sales were up 16% despite DVD sales being down 10%.
And selling players for cheaper is a bad thing? Sales accelerate when prices drop. DVD players are $35, it must be a complete flop!
It's about time for these ridiculous slanted anti-BluRay articles to end. BluRay is having a tough enough time without slashdot airing repeated hit pieces.
Exactly! And if they accept 3 cases per 1.2M head of cattle from their own country, then there's no reason they shouldn't accept at least that rate in beef from ours.
I don't think you're very familiar with the Japanese.
The countries in question also test 100% of the beef they import from other countries, and 100% of the beef they produce themselves.
These countries do not test 100% of the beef they import from other countries, it's not possible. The tests involve spinal column material, which is removed at the slaughterhouse and not available to these other countries when they import beef (or other meats for that matter). I would imagine one of the reasons this company would like to go 100% testing at the slaughterhouse is so they can export to other countries who do test their own local beef 100% (like Japan) and say their beef is equally safe.
As mentioned in my other post, apparently other countries who test 100% do have this problem. Japan only produces 1.2M head of cattle a year, and found 9 cases between their own country and yet found 9 cases between 2001 and 2004. Of course, they don't ban their own meat, in fact they are busy trying to prove BSE (at least the strain found in their own country) doesn't cause vCJD. I suspect they are correct, BTW.
Read the other half of my post. They may not BE false. They may be spontaneous cases. In 35M cows (per year), it's far from impossible. Even though 2 (real) positives a year may exist, they may always have existed (I believe the FDA suspects this) and it hasn't been an issue in the past, but would be now because there are groups that would fly off the handle over it.
Additionally, see my other post on testing. It my be you can't retest. For example I don't know that the test results come immediately, they likely just submit the tests, then process the meat and hold back the batches of meat (or even sides) until the results come back. By the time the results come back positive, the brain may already be destroyed, making retesting (or other testing) impossible.
I dunno. It's probably a lot more complicated than slashdot (and reddit, etc.) make it out to be.
As of 2004, Japan (with 100% testing) had found 9 cases of BSE in their own cattle, even though they only have 1.2M head a year. That means the US would statistically have between 0 and 2 (inclusive) positive results a year with 100% testing.
I wish the world would be rational about positive results, but I fear they wouldn't. It'll be the same unrealistic "zero tolerance" nonsense we see in other situations.
That depends on the test. Some test return false positives because the tests check for a marker that although strongly follows the incidence of the malady/item you are testing for but can also be present without the actual malady/item. An example is the guy who was accused of having a bottle of GHB, because the test said so. But the bottle was actually full of soap (even labeled as such), and that "GHB" test produces positive tests when run on soap (not detergent, which further muddied the issue). They could run that test until the cows came home and it would still have returned positives. As you mention, there may be other (presumably more expensive or longer) tests that do work though.
As to me being an idiot, you are missing my point. It isn't about me here. I am saying that there are large groups of people who matter (unlike me) who will react to the initial results and not wait around for the retest, they'll stop buying US beef. This actually happened once before, when 6 cows were found with BSE in the US. Nations immediately banned US beef. But the cows were found to have been imported from Canada, and were tracked back to another group of Canadian cows with BSE, seemingly proving they contracted it in Canada, under Canadian rules which allowed cows to be fed ground up bits of other cows until 1997.
I'm saying others don't act rationally, and the FDA is seemingly trying to take away trigger events which can cause others to do so.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I don't know if I agree with your 3rd. See my other post in the article.
People just aren't rational about risks. If they find out there are 2 cows with BSE a year (and no evidence it hasn't always been that way), they'll go nuts even though it isn't warranted.
I'm not quite to the point of saying the FDA should do this, but I can see why they do.
Here's the thing, if a single cow shows evidence of BSE, many countries stop importing our beef for a long period of time.
So you want to test 35,000,000 cows a year? If the test is 99.999999% accurate, it'll produce 35 false positives each year. And countries are going to stop importing our beef on those false positives.
On top of that, some portion of cows are going to test as positive (even accurately) spontaneously. BSE had to start somewhere, there's no reason that even if we wipe it out in cows it can't show up again. And we'll lose sales based upon those too.
So yeah, it's an effort to keep from having positive results. But with 1% testing, we can apprently tell that there currently isn't a higher level of BSE in cows in the US than there has ever been. So the number of lives lost to BSE from cows isn't going to be any different than it has been in the past. And it hasn't seemed to be a problem before.
As to the idea that testing will help us internationally, well, there's nothing forcing the South Koreas to buy our beef right now, and they're still buying it. There's no reason I can see to think that sales will go up further in that country with more testing.
I'm not sure why Americans act like we have the worst problem with this in the world. It has not been legal to feed cow parts to cows (which can lead to spread of prion-based diseases) for my entire life. This is unlike Canada, for example where it was only banned a few years back based upon BSE fears.
Sooner or later the extent of BSE contamination in US herds is going to come out, and consumer reaction will be so swift and devastating that it will likely take decades for the industry to recover.
So, expert, what is the extent of BSE contamination in US herds? What evidence do you have that it difference significantly from what the statistical testing currently done tells us?
Yes, this is a vulnerability. But it isn't like every person out there on the internet is going to be able to steal your session cookies in two weeks when the tool is released.
In order to execute this attack, a person would have to be able to sniff your packets and steal the cookies. And since the vast majority of people on the internet have no ability to intercept your traffic, this means in practice, the average person is pretty safe without having to worry about all this.
It could read from either set of heads, but I believe could only write from one set. Writes can be posted in a write-behind buffer, so this didn't impact performance.
I can't stand Air America or Fox talk radio. Talk radio is just a breeding ground for radicalism. Even the sports fans go nutty on sports talk radio!
These stations have an agenda that I don't like. But it's pretty likely none of them are changing any minds with their programming, you don't listen unless you're already primed with the same ideas you're gonna hear.
I'm more concerned with what local stations do. Those that are supposed to be serving the community in some way (oh, such a forgotten concept). I took the word "local" out of my "local TV station" comment, because I re-read the parent post and it specifically talked about national coverage. I shouldn't have done so, because although it made my post look more on-topic, it actually changed what I was saying.
I would be more concerned in towns where there is perhaps only one or two TV stations, if the stations took sides like this. You turn on not to reinforce your political views, maybe just to see American Idol and you end up being force fed an agenda. That would be a problem. I don't like it. I don't like pastors giving out voting sheets either. Let people make up their own minds, instead of telling them how to think. And that goes for you Paulites (you know who you are) too.
Yes, it is unfair (and essentially amoral) for a TV station to give airtime to one candidate and not another.
I have no idea what you are saying with the thing about submitting slashdot articles.
How about you stop trying to tell me I'm telling people what they can and cannot do? I said it was amoral. Did I say it should be illegal? Did I even tell anyone to not do it?
I pointed out it was amoral (in my opinion). You get to make your own decisions about whether to do it or not. I put it this way specifically because I didn't want people like you saying I'm trying to deny others the ability to make their own decisions.
A locality should be able to select their own candidates without outside interference.
Let me put it this way, me and my buddies here in Silicon Valley could easy drop many thousands (hundreds of thousands if we do it as a group) on political races in Alabama, selecting candidates that represent our views, trying to make behave the way we want (pro-choice, etc.)
But that wouldn't be right. Everyone is entitled to select representatives that represent them, and not those who live thousands of miles away.
This person should be working within his community. That's where he's going to have effect anyway.
This wasn't the US government, it was Google. You can still see it on Vimeo. And if they edit out the alleged copyright infringement, they can put the video back up. Additionally, any news source can air this without fear, as news is generally held to have a rather broad exception to copyright laws.
If it were really censorship, the news sources would be the primary targets to stop, not one that is actually relatively immune.
How about "World Champion" driver Kimi Raikkonen? He only won one series, Formula 1. Formula 1 may have a lot of great drivers, but he didn't best all drivers in the world, only those in his series.
This idea that the US is the only country that calls people "world champions" without a competition open to all comers is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree you can't compare percentages like that. And yet the original article does so.
Yet more indication that the original article sucks.
Wait, I thought you said BluRay was doing great?
Where in my post did I say that? I said it did very well the week before. I didn't say it was "doing great".
I didn't say it was doing great. But it's also not doing very poorly either, as the article and summary state. The article and summary are very slanted, they are cherry picking data and distorting info (like saying low prices are bad) in order to make things look worse than they are.
The week before, market share of BluRay was WAY up. BluRay sales were up 16% despite DVD sales being down 10%.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/09/13/nielsen-videoscan-high-def-market-share-for-week-ending-septembe/
And selling players for cheaper is a bad thing? Sales accelerate when prices drop. DVD players are $35, it must be a complete flop!
It's about time for these ridiculous slanted anti-BluRay articles to end. BluRay is having a tough enough time without slashdot airing repeated hit pieces.
Sidekick was on the PC in 1983.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SideKick
Exactly! And if they accept 3 cases per 1.2M head of cattle from their own country, then there's no reason they shouldn't accept at least that rate in beef from ours.
I don't think you're very familiar with the Japanese.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/11/1063268512176.html
The Japanese don't ban their own beef despite a few cases of BSE because it is their beef, not because they've come to grips with the figures.
The countries in question also test 100% of the beef they import from other countries, and 100% of the beef they produce themselves.
These countries do not test 100% of the beef they import from other countries, it's not possible. The tests involve spinal column material, which is removed at the slaughterhouse and not available to these other countries when they import beef (or other meats for that matter). I would imagine one of the reasons this company would like to go 100% testing at the slaughterhouse is so they can export to other countries who do test their own local beef 100% (like Japan) and say their beef is equally safe.
As mentioned in my other post, apparently other countries who test 100% do have this problem. Japan only produces 1.2M head of cattle a year, and found 9 cases between their own country and yet found 9 cases between 2001 and 2004. Of course, they don't ban their own meat, in fact they are busy trying to prove BSE (at least the strain found in their own country) doesn't cause vCJD. I suspect they are correct, BTW.
Read the other half of my post. They may not BE false. They may be spontaneous cases. In 35M cows (per year), it's far from impossible. Even though 2 (real) positives a year may exist, they may always have existed (I believe the FDA suspects this) and it hasn't been an issue in the past, but would be now because there are groups that would fly off the handle over it.
Additionally, see my other post on testing. It my be you can't retest. For example I don't know that the test results come immediately, they likely just submit the tests, then process the meat and hold back the batches of meat (or even sides) until the results come back. By the time the results come back positive, the brain may already be destroyed, making retesting (or other testing) impossible.
I dunno. It's probably a lot more complicated than slashdot (and reddit, etc.) make it out to be.
I found this while searching:
http://www.hpj.com/archives/2004/feb04/NewGoldStandardtestforBSE.CFM
As of 2004, Japan (with 100% testing) had found 9 cases of BSE in their own cattle, even though they only have 1.2M head a year. That means the US would statistically have between 0 and 2 (inclusive) positive results a year with 100% testing.
I wish the world would be rational about positive results, but I fear they wouldn't. It'll be the same unrealistic "zero tolerance" nonsense we see in other situations.
That depends on the test. Some test return false positives because the tests check for a marker that although strongly follows the incidence of the malady/item you are testing for but can also be present without the actual malady/item. An example is the guy who was accused of having a bottle of GHB, because the test said so. But the bottle was actually full of soap (even labeled as such), and that "GHB" test produces positive tests when run on soap (not detergent, which further muddied the issue). They could run that test until the cows came home and it would still have returned positives. As you mention, there may be other (presumably more expensive or longer) tests that do work though.
As to me being an idiot, you are missing my point. It isn't about me here. I am saying that there are large groups of people who matter (unlike me) who will react to the initial results and not wait around for the retest, they'll stop buying US beef. This actually happened once before, when 6 cows were found with BSE in the US. Nations immediately banned US beef. But the cows were found to have been imported from Canada, and were tracked back to another group of Canadian cows with BSE, seemingly proving they contracted it in Canada, under Canadian rules which allowed cows to be fed ground up bits of other cows until 1997.
I'm saying others don't act rationally, and the FDA is seemingly trying to take away trigger events which can cause others to do so.
I agree with your 2nd paragraph. I don't know if I agree with your 3rd. See my other post in the article.
People just aren't rational about risks. If they find out there are 2 cows with BSE a year (and no evidence it hasn't always been that way), they'll go nuts even though it isn't warranted.
I'm not quite to the point of saying the FDA should do this, but I can see why they do.
Here's the thing, if a single cow shows evidence of BSE, many countries stop importing our beef for a long period of time.
So you want to test 35,000,000 cows a year? If the test is 99.999999% accurate, it'll produce 35 false positives each year. And countries are going to stop importing our beef on those false positives.
On top of that, some portion of cows are going to test as positive (even accurately) spontaneously. BSE had to start somewhere, there's no reason that even if we wipe it out in cows it can't show up again. And we'll lose sales based upon those too.
So yeah, it's an effort to keep from having positive results. But with 1% testing, we can apprently tell that there currently isn't a higher level of BSE in cows in the US than there has ever been. So the number of lives lost to BSE from cows isn't going to be any different than it has been in the past. And it hasn't seemed to be a problem before.
As to the idea that testing will help us internationally, well, there's nothing forcing the South Koreas to buy our beef right now, and they're still buying it. There's no reason I can see to think that sales will go up further in that country with more testing.
I'm not sure why Americans act like we have the worst problem with this in the world. It has not been legal to feed cow parts to cows (which can lead to spread of prion-based diseases) for my entire life. This is unlike Canada, for example where it was only banned a few years back based upon BSE fears.
Sooner or later the extent of BSE contamination in US herds is going to come out, and consumer reaction will be so swift and devastating that it will likely take decades for the industry to recover.
So, expert, what is the extent of BSE contamination in US herds? What evidence do you have that it difference significantly from what the statistical testing currently done tells us?
Please, someone give me a reasonable explanation as to why these machines remained certified for the last 8 years despite all this crap?
Yes, this is a vulnerability. But it isn't like every person out there on the internet is going to be able to steal your session cookies in two weeks when the tool is released.
In order to execute this attack, a person would have to be able to sniff your packets and steal the cookies. And since the vast majority of people on the internet have no ability to intercept your traffic, this means in practice, the average person is pretty safe without having to worry about all this.
Connor actually did this right around the time 3.5" drives started.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conner_Peripherals#Performance_issues_and_the_.22Chinook.22_dual-actuator_drive
It could read from either set of heads, but I believe could only write from one set. Writes can be posted in a write-behind buffer, so this didn't impact performance.
I can't stand Air America or Fox talk radio. Talk radio is just a breeding ground for radicalism. Even the sports fans go nutty on sports talk radio!
These stations have an agenda that I don't like. But it's pretty likely none of them are changing any minds with their programming, you don't listen unless you're already primed with the same ideas you're gonna hear.
I'm more concerned with what local stations do. Those that are supposed to be serving the community in some way (oh, such a forgotten concept). I took the word "local" out of my "local TV station" comment, because I re-read the parent post and it specifically talked about national coverage. I shouldn't have done so, because although it made my post look more on-topic, it actually changed what I was saying.
I would be more concerned in towns where there is perhaps only one or two TV stations, if the stations took sides like this. You turn on not to reinforce your political views, maybe just to see American Idol and you end up being force fed an agenda. That would be a problem. I don't like it. I don't like pastors giving out voting sheets either. Let people make up their own minds, instead of telling them how to think. And that goes for you Paulites (you know who you are) too.
Yes, it is unfair (and essentially amoral) for a TV station to give airtime to one candidate and not another.
I have no idea what you are saying with the thing about submitting slashdot articles.
How about you stop trying to tell me I'm telling people what they can and cannot do? I said it was amoral. Did I say it should be illegal? Did I even tell anyone to not do it?
I pointed out it was amoral (in my opinion). You get to make your own decisions about whether to do it or not. I put it this way specifically because I didn't want people like you saying I'm trying to deny others the ability to make their own decisions.
A locality should be able to select their own candidates without outside interference.
Candidates wouldn't bother doing it.
You are incredibly naive.
And just because it might be possible to influence their elections due to their voters' foolishness, doesn't mean it's moral. As I mentioned above.
You're using the same "well, no one is stopping me so it must be okay" justifications that Enron employees did.
His district. Not even a micropayment's worth.
Let me put it this way, me and my buddies here in Silicon Valley could easy drop many thousands (hundreds of thousands if we do it as a group) on political races in Alabama, selecting candidates that represent our views, trying to make behave the way we want (pro-choice, etc.)
But that wouldn't be right. Everyone is entitled to select representatives that represent them, and not those who live thousands of miles away.
This person should be working within his community. That's where he's going to have effect anyway.
It's morally bankrupt at best.
The people in these positions should represent those in their districts, not those from other places (like affluent Silicon Valley where I live).
Chapter 7 is bankruptcy (receivership).
Chapter 11 is reorganization.
This wasn't the US government, it was Google. You can still see it on Vimeo. And if they edit out the alleged copyright infringement, they can put the video back up. Additionally, any news source can air this without fear, as news is generally held to have a rather broad exception to copyright laws.
If it were really censorship, the news sources would be the primary targets to stop, not one that is actually relatively immune.
Not the good of the games and the spirit of peaceful international competition.
If they lose control over the symbols, they won't be able to charge out the wazoo to use them in advertising.
It's Major League Baseball, you chump.
And please get off this stupid high horse.
How about "World Champion" driver Kimi Raikkonen? He only won one series, Formula 1. Formula 1 may have a lot of great drivers, but he didn't best all drivers in the world, only those in his series.
This idea that the US is the only country that calls people "world champions" without a competition open to all comers is ridiculous.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/6463781.stm
'Lewis Hamilton has marked himself out as a future world champion'
That wasn't written by an American.
NOxes happen because at the high temperatures of combustion, nitrogen reacts and picks up oxygen atoms.
The formula for burning gasoline is
gas + O2 -> H2O + CO2
and yet it yields NOxes. Why did you think hydrogen combustion would be different?
If you burn hydrogen with air (not just oxygen) at high temperatures (as needed to get physical work out) you will create NOx.
The Chinese Olympic officials fake some fireworks and slashdot immediately turns it into "what did NBC know and when did they know it?"
What the hell is going on here?