That would be politics. Using a "consensus of experts from different disciplines and geographical regions" is a fail in science, unless strictly limited to qualified experts in actually strongly relevant areas. This mainly shows that the WHO does either not understand science or that the practice has been annihilated by politics within it.
Some people cannot help themselves. There is a reason gambling is regulated everywhere in the civilized world and it is not just to make money via taxes.
Cutting costs this way is an art and not many are masters of it. You need to have an excellent understanding of the importance of all parts and steps. I have had some very optimized but still fully functional and reliable electronics components from China. I also had (rarely) utter crap. What stands out is that the good quality ones are often sold by a lot of different vendors. Still, you need to be able to evaluate quality as the buyer and have an understanding as to what price you actually need to pay or quality becomes impossible.
To be clear you're probably right that this was some gungho idiot making some blind design and shipping it on the cheap, but you can not universally tell that from the price.
True, you need additional factors, like the number shipped and what the rest actually costs to make. Still, greed is a strong force and often people will not do essential tests even when they could have paid for them. Also note that at time of testing, they may not actually have any idea how many they will sell, unless it is a revised version of an earlier product.
Probably not. Historically, a people this disconnected from reality just becomes irrelevant. This is typically accelerated by all the smart ones leaving when it becomes obvious that things will not improve.
Because that is, as I understood, the problem they had in the first place. Politics over quality and skills and a lot of money put into projects that were not core business at a time where the core business was not in too good a shape.
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against women as engineers. But engineers must be judged on skill, experience and capabilities, not their genetic makeup, skin color or preferences in beverages. Anything else can only cause massive problems.
While I have gotten used to new devices needing testing and often fixes before they can be used, it is utterly pathetic when this is a device used to warn of life-threatening dangers. But it seems you have to do these tests today.
Hence when the whole device costs in that range, you can be sure an ElCheapo $1 sensor was used. (Prices from Ebay, so YMMV.) Also, gas-flow is non-trivial, you cannot just put the sensor into a case, put some holes in that case and hope for the best. And actual testing the device is not so cheap or easy too. I expect these fails were "blind designs" were the "engineer" just read the datasheet and build the device without ever doing any real and costly testing.
Fascinating. You obviously have not even taken a very brief look at the relevant literature and research. Probably you should apply there, as you seem to have the right combination of "can do" attitude and absolutely no clue whatever.
Found the moron in the discussion. The study that claimed that was for one specific vaccine, the primary author had an alternate vaccine coming out a few months later he claimed was better and his PhD was by now removed because the study was completely fraudulent. Look it up. No, vaccines do not cause autism.
That is probably the reason this study is so small. But according to Wikipedia, Type 1 is only 5-10% of all cases, so Big Pharma may just not care, not enough money in it.
Perpetrated by cave-men that think the only valid response to anything is to apply violence. The actual facts are that attribution is basically impossible and that you have an extremely high chance to hit the wrong target and that will obviously make matters worse, not better. There is even an attack-technique were you let some aggressive but brain-dead actor do your dirty work by faking an attack from the intended victim. So far this did usually not work because nobody was actually stupid enough to try an offensive "defense", but of we get that stupidity now, we will see these attacks. What is needed instead is that the utterly laughable level of defense prevalent in most businesses need to finally be brought so something that actually qualifies as defense. Hacking is a lot of work and hacking a reasonably defended enemy is economically non-viable. What is also needed is that DDoS for hire, bot-nets and the like get shut down fast and in coordinated actions, but that is law enforcement, not war. Might require some international treaties and collaboration, and the US currently seems to have forgotten the very high value of those.
And it means exactly nothing. The best implementation I ever saw was a pair of boxes with a physical "air gap" in the middle and a wireless connection going over it. To be not completely useless, it had a conventional firewall in there as well, but the term "air gap" is meaningless these days. It used to mean "physically isolated", but those days are over.
Face recognition is a pure show-effect at this time. The visibility (and it would need to be visible to provide any perceived "security gains") will make surveillance more obvious. Also, attendance is taken by humans and it is pretty clear what it is for and the children know the teachers. This is anonymous surveillance bu machines and the children do not really understand how it works, what it can do or what it is for. This sends a "be afraid" message.
Of course, the religious are immune, they already have permanent and malicious surveillance by their "God", so I can see why they would not mind.
But why on earth are we discussing face recognition cameras FIRST and only THEN what they could be used for?
People are stupid. They somehow think these cameras can "see danger" and there the thought process already stops. Because if somebody sees the danger, they are going to do something about it, right?
And in other news, school-shooters are usually identified pretty fast after they have entered the building and they usually were not on any blacklist before that. Does exactly nothing to stop them though. Forget about "locking down" any entrances automatically either. Not compatible with fire-codes and for good reason. Also, face-recognition is _unreliable_.
On the plus-side, the earlier children learn they live in a surveillance-society and not a free one, the better.
No. No tunneling in a conducting PN junction except in breakdown, and there it is dependent on voltage and not the only type of conduction. At least as far as I understand this process. It has been about 30 years that I looked at the details.
I should qualify this a bit: Of course semiconductors use quantum effects. It is just the more bizarre ones (like tunneling) that are usually not needed. My apologies.
Ah, sorry if that was unclear. Quantum Mechanics is just one possibility not ruled out so far, it is not the only one. I certainly do not subscribe to any "quantum mysticism" bullshit or the like. That would require extraordinary proof.
However, I disagree on general artificial intelligence. We have now done about 60 years of intense research, theoretically (zero results) and experimentally (zero results). I think something essential is missing and I would maintain that at this time it is completely unclear what that is. I do agree that if we get general AI, that fact should solve a lot of fundamental questions.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, neither bipolar transistors nor FETs work with quantum mechanical effects. They work by shifting mobile electrons using electric fields and thereby changing material properties between insulator and conductor. Not so different on the base level from vacuum tubes, also no quantum effects there. The only two examples of semiconductors I know using quantum effects is a diode in breakdown (partially uses tunnel-effect) and some exotic semiconductors.
And my intent was not to explain anything away, just to point out that there are a lot of things we do not understand and where we do not know the totality of the relevant mechanisms either. Giving one example of a possibility not understood is a standard proof technique for that. It does not, in any way, imply that the example given is the missing piece.
Actually, there are a lot of quantum-effects in synapses. This has been known for quite a while. Of course, nobody knows yet whether they have any real influence (since nobody knows how sentience works), but it pretty much is the elephant in the room. So, no, the brain pretty much is a maximally complex construct with a lot of quantum effects in its critical interconnect and as such it is unique. In simple, uniform structures, quantum effects will just cancel themselves out to produce an average. Nobody knows whether that is also true in highly complex structures like the brain.
And that is my whole point: The question is completely open. Funnily, I am not actually opposed to AI with general intelligence in any way, but I just don't see it in anything done today or proposed today. Unfortunately, as so many people are so easily fooled by non-intelligent machines, I usually have to take the position that no, these are not intelligent and that no, the reductionist argument (simplified: "the brain is a computer build up of independent logical elements") does not work as a situation must meet pretty hard criteria before reductionism works. For example, a digital computer that works deterministically is an object where reductionism applies. But put in some "real" random numbers (e.g. quantum-noise generated, not actually hard to do) and that goes out the window and reductionism becomes a mere approximation that may fail in complex questions and you cannot use it as a tool to prove things anymore. This again does not say that the brain is _not_ a computer, it just says the argument used to "prove" this is invalid and hence the question remains open.
I do notice that a really large number of people can apparently not stand such a question to be open and just jump on any and all possible explanations and present them as "obvious" truth. There is nothing "obvious" here and most things are unknown.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be politics. Using a "consensus of experts from different disciplines and geographical regions" is a fail in science, unless strictly limited to qualified experts in actually strongly relevant areas. This mainly shows that the WHO does either not understand science or that the practice has been annihilated by politics within it.
Some people cannot help themselves. There is a reason gambling is regulated everywhere in the civilized world and it is not just to make money via taxes.
Cutting costs this way is an art and not many are masters of it. You need to have an excellent understanding of the importance of all parts and steps. I have had some very optimized but still fully functional and reliable electronics components from China. I also had (rarely) utter crap. What stands out is that the good quality ones are often sold by a lot of different vendors. Still, you need to be able to evaluate quality as the buyer and have an understanding as to what price you actually need to pay or quality becomes impossible.
To be clear you're probably right that this was some gungho idiot making some blind design and shipping it on the cheap, but you can not universally tell that from the price.
True, you need additional factors, like the number shipped and what the rest actually costs to make. Still, greed is a strong force and often people will not do essential tests even when they could have paid for them. Also note that at time of testing, they may not actually have any idea how many they will sell, unless it is a revised version of an earlier product.
For safety-critical equipment, that is the way to go.
Probably not. Historically, a people this disconnected from reality just becomes irrelevant. This is typically accelerated by all the smart ones leaving when it becomes obvious that things will not improve.
Because that is, as I understood, the problem they had in the first place. Politics over quality and skills and a lot of money put into projects that were not core business at a time where the core business was not in too good a shape.
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against women as engineers. But engineers must be judged on skill, experience and capabilities, not their genetic makeup, skin color or preferences in beverages. Anything else can only cause massive problems.
While I have gotten used to new devices needing testing and often fixes before they can be used, it is utterly pathetic when this is a device used to warn of life-threatening dangers. But it seems you have to do these tests today.
Hence when the whole device costs in that range, you can be sure an ElCheapo $1 sensor was used. (Prices from Ebay, so YMMV.) Also, gas-flow is non-trivial, you cannot just put the sensor into a case, put some holes in that case and hope for the best. And actual testing the device is not so cheap or easy too. I expect these fails were "blind designs" were the "engineer" just read the datasheet and build the device without ever doing any real and costly testing.
Fascinating. You obviously have not even taken a very brief look at the relevant literature and research. Probably you should apply there, as you seem to have the right combination of "can do" attitude and absolutely no clue whatever.
Found the moron in the discussion. The study that claimed that was for one specific vaccine, the primary author had an alternate vaccine coming out a few months later he claimed was better and his PhD was by now removed because the study was completely fraudulent. Look it up. No, vaccines do not cause autism.
That is probably the reason this study is so small. But according to Wikipedia, Type 1 is only 5-10% of all cases, so Big Pharma may just not care, not enough money in it.
Got some more quasi-religious nonsense to share?
Perpetrated by cave-men that think the only valid response to anything is to apply violence. The actual facts are that attribution is basically impossible and that you have an extremely high chance to hit the wrong target and that will obviously make matters worse, not better. There is even an attack-technique were you let some aggressive but brain-dead actor do your dirty work by faking an attack from the intended victim. So far this did usually not work because nobody was actually stupid enough to try an offensive "defense", but of we get that stupidity now, we will see these attacks. What is needed instead is that the utterly laughable level of defense prevalent in most businesses need to finally be brought so something that actually qualifies as defense. Hacking is a lot of work and hacking a reasonably defended enemy is economically non-viable. What is also needed is that DDoS for hire, bot-nets and the like get shut down fast and in coordinated actions, but that is law enforcement, not war. Might require some international treaties and collaboration, and the US currently seems to have forgotten the very high value of those.
And it means exactly nothing. The best implementation I ever saw was a pair of boxes with a physical "air gap" in the middle and a wireless connection going over it. To be not completely useless, it had a conventional firewall in there as well, but the term "air gap" is meaningless these days. It used to mean "physically isolated", but those days are over.
Face recognition is a pure show-effect at this time. The visibility (and it would need to be visible to provide any perceived "security gains") will make surveillance more obvious. Also, attendance is taken by humans and it is pretty clear what it is for and the children know the teachers. This is anonymous surveillance bu machines and the children do not really understand how it works, what it can do or what it is for. This sends a "be afraid" message.
Of course, the religious are immune, they already have permanent and malicious surveillance by their "God", so I can see why they would not mind.
Nazi Germany 2.0 was the DDR surveilance state. This is at least version 3.0!
But why on earth are we discussing face recognition cameras FIRST and only THEN what they could be used for?
People are stupid. They somehow think these cameras can "see danger" and there the thought process already stops. Because if somebody sees the danger, they are going to do something about it, right?
And in other news, school-shooters are usually identified pretty fast after they have entered the building and they usually were not on any blacklist before that. Does exactly nothing to stop them though. Forget about "locking down" any entrances automatically either. Not compatible with fire-codes and for good reason. Also, face-recognition is _unreliable_.
On the plus-side, the earlier children learn they live in a surveillance-society and not a free one, the better.
No. No tunneling in a conducting PN junction except in breakdown, and there it is dependent on voltage and not the only type of conduction. At least as far as I understand this process. It has been about 30 years that I looked at the details.
I should qualify this a bit: Of course semiconductors use quantum effects. It is just the more bizarre ones (like tunneling) that are usually not needed. My apologies.
Ah, sorry if that was unclear. Quantum Mechanics is just one possibility not ruled out so far, it is not the only one. I certainly do not subscribe to any "quantum mysticism" bullshit or the like. That would require extraordinary proof.
However, I disagree on general artificial intelligence. We have now done about 60 years of intense research, theoretically (zero results) and experimentally (zero results). I think something essential is missing and I would maintain that at this time it is completely unclear what that is. I do agree that if we get general AI, that fact should solve a lot of fundamental questions.
Incidentally, to the best of my knowledge, neither bipolar transistors nor FETs work with quantum mechanical effects. They work by shifting mobile electrons using electric fields and thereby changing material properties between insulator and conductor. Not so different on the base level from vacuum tubes, also no quantum effects there. The only two examples of semiconductors I know using quantum effects is a diode in breakdown (partially uses tunnel-effect) and some exotic semiconductors.
And my intent was not to explain anything away, just to point out that there are a lot of things we do not understand and where we do not know the totality of the relevant mechanisms either. Giving one example of a possibility not understood is a standard proof technique for that. It does not, in any way, imply that the example given is the missing piece.
Fitting. And nothing of value will be lost.
Actually, there are a lot of quantum-effects in synapses. This has been known for quite a while. Of course, nobody knows yet whether they have any real influence (since nobody knows how sentience works), but it pretty much is the elephant in the room. So, no, the brain pretty much is a maximally complex construct with a lot of quantum effects in its critical interconnect and as such it is unique. In simple, uniform structures, quantum effects will just cancel themselves out to produce an average. Nobody knows whether that is also true in highly complex structures like the brain.
And that is my whole point: The question is completely open. Funnily, I am not actually opposed to AI with general intelligence in any way, but I just don't see it in anything done today or proposed today. Unfortunately, as so many people are so easily fooled by non-intelligent machines, I usually have to take the position that no, these are not intelligent and that no, the reductionist argument (simplified: "the brain is a computer build up of independent logical elements") does not work as a situation must meet pretty hard criteria before reductionism works. For example, a digital computer that works deterministically is an object where reductionism applies. But put in some "real" random numbers (e.g. quantum-noise generated, not actually hard to do) and that goes out the window and reductionism becomes a mere approximation that may fail in complex questions and you cannot use it as a tool to prove things anymore. This again does not say that the brain is _not_ a computer, it just says the argument used to "prove" this is invalid and hence the question remains open.
I do notice that a really large number of people can apparently not stand such a question to be open and just jump on any and all possible explanations and present them as "obvious" truth. There is nothing "obvious" here and most things are unknown.