It is the height of meglomania to suggest that human beings have a greater impact on the planet than that big-ass hot thing that comes over the horizon every morning.
And it's the height of willful ignorance to not understand that the human impact on climate is caused by solar radiation -- it's the human effect on the impact of that solar radiation that leads to anthropogenic climate change.
You will find articles dating back 20 years or more, with many articles devoted to the coming catastrophe of Global COOLING. They were all anticipating the new Ice Age.
Humans tend to think that the span of our lifetimes are significant, when in the scope of Universe, our lifespans, and indeed human life on this planet are nothing but a blip, a footnote, a grain of sand on the beach.
Immaterial. The impact of global warming is still significant to mankind, in the midst of that 'blip'. The point you make is equivalent to saying that I shouldn't be concerned if my home is burning to the ground because I'm only one of several billion humans -- hogwash. To me, that home is important, just as to mankind, global warming is important, despite our insignificance in the big picture of the universe.
I tend to think the Earth can and will do what it will do without consulting us.
Get your head out of the sand, please. The Earth is not a sentient being, it is not some mystical entity that 'does what it wants' -- it is a collection of all the things on and in it, including us. And to think that we are not part of the Earth system, to think that we have no influence on global phenomena, is to deny human existence.
Re:Ah, the evolution of math geekiness...
on
Wednesday Is Pi Day
·
· Score: 1
There is actually a very efficient way of memorizing strings of random digits one you get the hang of it - the key is groups of 5.
I recall reading a study (a couple decades ago) that memorizing strings of digits was, as you say, made easier by organizing them into blocks. What I found interesting about the study is that it found the optimal block size was the number of digits in a standard telephone number in whatever country the test subject(s) were from.
E.g., Americans did best by memorizing strings of 7 digits, Germans 9 digits. I can't trace the article, since it was provided by my high school German teacher who I've lost contact with, and a google didn't turn up anything.
I also feel safer because everyone else around me is driving in the daylight too.
Which is great unless you happen to drive due east in the evening (as my wife does). Nothing like 10,000 people driving directly towards the setting sun to ensure that there is an accident every day there is no cloud cover.
I must've gotten up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. But making fun of a physicist's name? Surely there is some more original humor to be found in the article?
FYI, Zoltan is a non-extraordinary Hungarian name. Zoltar was a GI Joe baddie, IIRC.
I'm only back here because Slashdot still picks up better stories than Digg and is less spammy and redundant about it. Good old slashdot.
I'll agree with you there.
Somehow I feel like I've fallen out of step with the slashdot zeitgeist, though. Has there been a massive transformation in the slashdot crowd, or am I just getting old and cranky?
Nothing shouts serious, professional scientist like the name Bebo.
As opposed to these physicists:
Zoltán Lajos Bay Neils Bohr Gerd Binnig Fritjof Capra Hippolyte Fizeau Tsung-Dao Lee Thanu Padmanabhan
Because nothing says scientific rigor like thinking that someone's name, because it is different for cultural or other reasons, has anything to do with their scientific ability.
I know, you were 'making a funny' -- but one would think that your average scientifically-interested slashdotter wouldn't... oh wait. Never mind.
FDA approval is a regulatory barrier and demands very lengthy, very expensive and time consuming pre-clinical and clinical testing.
But it's not a barrier to entry, since established companies must also comply with FDA regulations. Barriers to entry imply that only new entrants face the the barrier.
Take Merck and Vioxx for example.
That is exactly what I was referring to with the COX2 inhibitors... Vioxx is the specific example.
From a business standpoint, if you sell a cure and your competitor sells a "treatment", you'll erase them from the map. So they would definitely like to "cure" things.
Recent examples? What is happenig now is that they primarily try to put out a competing product, rather than a cure. It's not about putting your competitor out of business, it's about maximizing your profits. The two are not the same, since again, R&D (and drug products!) are not a commodity good where you maximize profits by removing competitors.
My point is that the "hit and miss" process is not just a wasted stack of paper or some CPU cycles but a process involving real patients, possible deaths, legal battles.
Agreed. But patients' lives, legal battles, etc, boil down to fiscal liability and cost... from the business standpoint, which is what the drug companies consider.
I did some quick research, what they came up with can be found here: BPR.
I'm sure they had a tough time decidig between BPR, BPRE, BPR-E, and BPRe. I'm also sure that they had an easy time billing the client for those hours.
I'd bet plenty of PHBs pronounce it as "beeper", which I'd also bet leads to all kinds of confusion as the sales force long ago upgraded from beepers to cell phones to crackberries.
That, and "Beeper" sounds like the name of a muppet.
Oh well, I suppose I'll log off and go watch whatever basketball game's on espen right now.
It's all just a psychological game, anyway; the actual amount of daylight obviously never changes, it's just that people really hate having to get up before their clock says they should, and thus it's necessary to fudge the clocks so that people get up earlier, and don't waste daylight and end up having it dark in their (clock-proscribed) "evening."
So it's a psychological game... it's one that pays off both mental health and in energy consumption. Double plus good.
Here's a ton of info on DST, including rationales for, arguments against, history of, etc.
Since humans are diurnal creatures, we should be out and about during daylight for maximum efficiency. It only makes sense that we should manipulate the clock in order to better stick to diurnal hours.
Right. But my point was that the OP stated that all non-profit use is, by definition, non-commercial. This is not the case. Plenty of non-profits engage in commercial activity that would prohibit them from using the material for that purpose under C-Span's licensing.
The problem is the barriers to entry are so high that sufficient competition can't take place, hence there is no pressure to work quickly.
Except the barriers to entry are mostly not regulatory in nature. As with most advanced R&D-based industries, the barriers are brainpower and equipment. There's plenty of capital out there to handle the hit-and-miss nature of drug design, and the regulatory restrictions on drug production and marketing are not barriers to entry for research.
IMO, what is truly limiting the pharma industry is profit incentive. Big pharma researches the things that will make them the most money -- which, BTW, are not cures for diseases, but rather treatments for conditions.
The 'competition' you speak of has nothing to do with R&D of new drugs. Barriers to entry prevent new entrants from producing and selling a commodity good, and new drugs are by no means commodities (patents have a lot to do with that). If you're talking about R&D as a commodity, that's a whole different discussion -- but again, it's brainpower and equipment that are the limiting factors causing the barriers to entry.
As for incentive to work quickly, that is not the case. There is definitely an incentive to work quickly as there is competition from all the big companies -- look at the COX2 inhibitors that were all the rage as low-side effect NSAIDS a couple years ago until certain really bad interactions manifested. Merck, Schering-Plough, everybody was in the game when the new sub-class was discovered. It was literally a rush to market, which is why the adverse effects weren't recognized until post-phase 4 trials.
If you are a non-profit organization, then even with ads it is not commercial
Not so. Not-for-profit does not imply non-commercial. Non-profits, even those classified as 501c(3), can still participate in commercial activity, provided it is not the focus of the organization. For example, PBS (a 501c(3)) cannot use copyrighted works without attribution, and even then still requires permission for otherwise-infringing use, even though they are a non-profit.
Well, regardless of the goodness of it, them's the facts.
Personally, I think it IS a good thing, since I believe it is the right and responsibility of people to interpret what they read -- no one should be obstructed from divulging truth.
You might like sex, but would you enjoy becoming a porn star?
Yes. Oh, yes I would.
Seriously, though, the reservations he mentioned (introverted, risk-averse, not a 'shark') preclude him from being happy in sales. I am also an introvert and risk-averse, and while I *can* be a shark, I don't like to be one, it makes me feel icky. I've done sales, and while it was lucrative, I was miserable within one year -- and that affected my sales figures.
Sales isn't for everyone. If he's not sure, then he can give it a shot -- but should make sure he's got a fall-back plan if his experience is like mine and yours.
Gee, I don't know, something about dilution of power keeping one moron from doing irrevocable harm?
Or someone who has to fool less than 300,000 people to retain power indefinitely vs. a term limited chief executive.
Very few representatives have to fool fewer than 300,000 people. Reps average 690,000 constituents, Senators 3,000,000. And again, that power is diluted.
IMO, we need representation more along the lines of 50,000 to 1, so that the decision-makers are directly accountable to their constituencies -- which would mean distributing most power back to state and local governments.
In direct contrast to your post, the more people a politician represents, the less accountable he is to those people.
For example, if you commited a petty offence, say shop lifting, 10 years ago. And I go around your book signing tour [say you wrote a book on gardening or something] writing reviews that revealed this fact and caused you harm. That could be considered libelous, since while true, is not in the best interest of the public (e.g. who cares) and it causes you harm (section 298).
Well, section 298 doesn't apply to this matter, since that's Canadian law, not US law. In the US, truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel. US libel laws are far more permissive than those of Commonwealth countries, and notably more permissive than those of the UK.
So how can the two senators instruct the US delegation to do anything?
Well, there's a lot of give-and-take, since the Senate must ratify any treaty before it goes into effect. Just like judicial nominations, the Executive Branch needs to consider whether a treaty or nominee will be confirmed before they issue their own stamp of approval.
In essence, these Senators are sending a message to the Executive Department that the treaty faces a tough time in the Senate unless it is narrowed in scope.
FYI, this is how the legislative and executive branches have worked out compromises in all but the most dysfunctional presidencies (Jackson is a notable exception -- the Senate and he couldn't get on the same page at all).
On the flip side, you could ask how the Executive Branch can ask the Senate and House to focus on certain issues, since theoretically they have no input into the functions of those bodies, only a veto power on the output. But it's surprising how much the two branches depend on eachother, and it's only recently that the Executive Branch has held so mouch power that it's been able to dictate actions in the Legislature -- and what we are witnessing here is an example of the pendulum swinging back to more Legislative influence (I hope).
We, the people, are the ones who created the monster. It's up to us to kill it.
The monster has always existed -- we allowed it to reach critical mass. I believe it is beyond the power of the people to kill it now, and the best we can hope for is to hold it at bay until we die, and tprepare our children to do the same.
I'm half-tempted to teach my children to be ignorant. They'll be much happier for it.
I don't know the specs of Ferret. I assume (typically a bad idea, of course) from the quote that Ferret searches more protocols than Wireshark, and thus casts a greater net.
Ultimately your politicians are answerable to you, no?
A rhetorical question, but you provided the correct answer.
No. In reality, politicians are answerable to the forces that get them elected -- big business and the media (which, although I make a distinction, are one and the same) -- not the people.
And if they refuse to listen to reason, ask the French for a loan of Madame Guillotine.
That's not so easy in a quasi-police state with a huge military. You think people are willing to risk their lives over copyrights? As you point out, we're sated with our McD's and creature comforts, so revolution isn't about to happen.
Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, but Americans don't need opiates -- we have enough bread and circus to keep us content.
The Errata sniffer, dubbed Ferret, packs more punch than other network sniffers already available, such as Ethereal and Kismet, because it looks at so many different protocols, Graham said. Some at Black Hat called it a "network sniffer on steroids."
Reading. It's what's for knowledge.
Oh, and Wireshark was Ethereal. They had to change the name due to trademark concerns.
It's actually not that funny: I'd estimate that around half the US population actually believes what you just wrote there. And the number is growing. The US is likely to become a fundamentalist theocracy in 50 years.
I know, it's very dispiriting. But look on the bright side, we get to claim responsibility for the 21st/22nd century dark ages.
These people are either voted into office (and we all know how unhackable the Diebold and other eVoting machines are), or are placed there by people who have other agendas. What agendas you ask? The lining of their pockets and subjugation of anyone who doesn't agree with them. I think this happened once before in the course of human history.
Just once?
That's the nature of (most) organized societies. Power to us at the expense of them.
It's annoying, but it's the nature of power and today's US government is no different than a multitiude of governments that have gone before, despite some remarkable experiments in alternative governments.
By the nature of greed and thirst for power, governments that do not possess those attributes become dominated by people who do.
The problem here is that a purported representative republic no longer has officials who represent the public. I've mentioned it before, but there is no accountability to the individual when you represent a few million people; instead, the accountability is to the groups that choose who gets elected -- corporations and the media.
Perhaps this is the begining of the end...??? I sure hope so.
Oh, it's the beginning of the end... but not the end of the corporatocracy. It's the end of the "grand experiment" of the American republic as a republic.
The problem isn't the money to destroy it or alter it's course... the problem is the money to find it.
If we don't know about it until it hits us (the likeliest current situation) then not only do we not get to try and destroy it, but we don't even get to party like it's 1999.
Slashdot Mirror
And it's the height of willful ignorance to not understand that the human impact on climate is caused by solar radiation -- it's the human effect on the impact of that solar radiation that leads to anthropogenic climate change.
Are people still comparing pop sci global cooling with real sci global warming?
Immaterial. The impact of global warming is still significant to mankind, in the midst of that 'blip'. The point you make is equivalent to saying that I shouldn't be concerned if my home is burning to the ground because I'm only one of several billion humans -- hogwash. To me, that home is important, just as to mankind, global warming is important, despite our insignificance in the big picture of the universe.
Get your head out of the sand, please. The Earth is not a sentient being, it is not some mystical entity that 'does what it wants' -- it is a collection of all the things on and in it, including us. And to think that we are not part of the Earth system, to think that we have no influence on global phenomena, is to deny human existence.
E.g., Americans did best by memorizing strings of 7 digits, Germans 9 digits. I can't trace the article, since it was provided by my high school German teacher who I've lost contact with, and a google didn't turn up anything.
FYI, Zoltan is a non-extraordinary Hungarian name. Zoltar was a GI Joe baddie, IIRC.
I'll agree with you there.
Somehow I feel like I've fallen out of step with the slashdot zeitgeist, though. Has there been a massive transformation in the slashdot crowd, or am I just getting old and cranky?
Zoltán Lajos Bay
Neils Bohr
Gerd Binnig
Fritjof Capra
Hippolyte Fizeau
Tsung-Dao Lee
Thanu Padmanabhan
Because nothing says scientific rigor like thinking that someone's name, because it is different for cultural or other reasons, has anything to do with their scientific ability.
I know, you were 'making a funny' -- but one would think that your average scientifically-interested slashdotter wouldn't... oh wait. Never mind.
But it's not a barrier to entry, since established companies must also comply with FDA regulations. Barriers to entry imply that only new entrants face the the barrier.
That is exactly what I was referring to with the COX2 inhibitors... Vioxx is the specific example.
Recent examples? What is happenig now is that they primarily try to put out a competing product, rather than a cure. It's not about putting your competitor out of business, it's about maximizing your profits. The two are not the same, since again, R&D (and drug products!) are not a commodity good where you maximize profits by removing competitors.
Agreed. But patients' lives, legal battles, etc, boil down to fiscal liability and cost... from the business standpoint, which is what the drug companies consider.
I did some quick research, what they came up with can be found here: BPR.
I'm sure they had a tough time decidig between BPR, BPRE, BPR-E, and BPRe. I'm also sure that they had an easy time billing the client for those hours.
I'd bet plenty of PHBs pronounce it as "beeper", which I'd also bet leads to all kinds of confusion as the sales force long ago upgraded from beepers to cell phones to crackberries.
That, and "Beeper" sounds like the name of a muppet.
Oh well, I suppose I'll log off and go watch whatever basketball game's on espen right now.
Here's a ton of info on DST, including rationales for, arguments against, history of, etc.
Since humans are diurnal creatures, we should be out and about during daylight for maximum efficiency. It only makes sense that we should manipulate the clock in order to better stick to diurnal hours.
Right. But my point was that the OP stated that all non-profit use is, by definition, non-commercial. This is not the case. Plenty of non-profits engage in commercial activity that would prohibit them from using the material for that purpose under C-Span's licensing.
Except the barriers to entry are mostly not regulatory in nature. As with most advanced R&D-based industries, the barriers are brainpower and equipment. There's plenty of capital out there to handle the hit-and-miss nature of drug design, and the regulatory restrictions on drug production and marketing are not barriers to entry for research.
IMO, what is truly limiting the pharma industry is profit incentive. Big pharma researches the things that will make them the most money -- which, BTW, are not cures for diseases, but rather treatments for conditions.
The 'competition' you speak of has nothing to do with R&D of new drugs. Barriers to entry prevent new entrants from producing and selling a commodity good, and new drugs are by no means commodities (patents have a lot to do with that). If you're talking about R&D as a commodity, that's a whole different discussion -- but again, it's brainpower and equipment that are the limiting factors causing the barriers to entry.
As for incentive to work quickly, that is not the case. There is definitely an incentive to work quickly as there is competition from all the big companies -- look at the COX2 inhibitors that were all the rage as low-side effect NSAIDS a couple years ago until certain really bad interactions manifested. Merck, Schering-Plough, everybody was in the game when the new sub-class was discovered. It was literally a rush to market, which is why the adverse effects weren't recognized until post-phase 4 trials.
Not so. Not-for-profit does not imply non-commercial. Non-profits, even those classified as 501c(3), can still participate in commercial activity, provided it is not the focus of the organization. For example, PBS (a 501c(3)) cannot use copyrighted works without attribution, and even then still requires permission for otherwise-infringing use, even though they are a non-profit.
Well, regardless of the goodness of it, them's the facts.
Personally, I think it IS a good thing, since I believe it is the right and responsibility of people to interpret what they read -- no one should be obstructed from divulging truth.
Seriously, though, the reservations he mentioned (introverted, risk-averse, not a 'shark') preclude him from being happy in sales. I am also an introvert and risk-averse, and while I *can* be a shark, I don't like to be one, it makes me feel icky. I've done sales, and while it was lucrative, I was miserable within one year -- and that affected my sales figures.
Sales isn't for everyone. If he's not sure, then he can give it a shot -- but should make sure he's got a fall-back plan if his experience is like mine and yours.
Very few representatives have to fool fewer than 300,000 people. Reps average 690,000 constituents, Senators 3,000,000. And again, that power is diluted.
IMO, we need representation more along the lines of 50,000 to 1, so that the decision-makers are directly accountable to their constituencies -- which would mean distributing most power back to state and local governments.
In direct contrast to your post, the more people a politician represents, the less accountable he is to those people.
Well, section 298 doesn't apply to this matter, since that's Canadian law, not US law. In the US, truth is an absolute defense against claims of libel. US libel laws are far more permissive than those of Commonwealth countries, and notably more permissive than those of the UK.
Well, there's a lot of give-and-take, since the Senate must ratify any treaty before it goes into effect. Just like judicial nominations, the Executive Branch needs to consider whether a treaty or nominee will be confirmed before they issue their own stamp of approval.
In essence, these Senators are sending a message to the Executive Department that the treaty faces a tough time in the Senate unless it is narrowed in scope.
FYI, this is how the legislative and executive branches have worked out compromises in all but the most dysfunctional presidencies (Jackson is a notable exception -- the Senate and he couldn't get on the same page at all).
On the flip side, you could ask how the Executive Branch can ask the Senate and House to focus on certain issues, since theoretically they have no input into the functions of those bodies, only a veto power on the output. But it's surprising how much the two branches depend on eachother, and it's only recently that the Executive Branch has held so mouch power that it's been able to dictate actions in the Legislature -- and what we are witnessing here is an example of the pendulum swinging back to more Legislative influence (I hope).
Sounds like someone who'd be a good friend for mastershake_phd's neighbor.
Oh, I know. That's why I'm only half-tempted :)
In the long run, knowing you fought the good fight is more satisfying than blissful ignorance, IMO.
Agreed.
The monster has always existed -- we allowed it to reach critical mass. I believe it is beyond the power of the people to kill it now, and the best we can hope for is to hold it at bay until we die, and tprepare our children to do the same.
I'm half-tempted to teach my children to be ignorant. They'll be much happier for it.
I don't know the specs of Ferret. I assume (typically a bad idea, of course) from the quote that Ferret searches more protocols than Wireshark, and thus casts a greater net.
No. In reality, politicians are answerable to the forces that get them elected -- big business and the media (which, although I make a distinction, are one and the same) -- not the people.
That's not so easy in a quasi-police state with a huge military. You think people are willing to risk their lives over copyrights? As you point out, we're sated with our McD's and creature comforts, so revolution isn't about to happen.
Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, but Americans don't need opiates -- we have enough bread and circus to keep us content.
Reading. It's what's for knowledge.
Oh, and Wireshark was Ethereal. They had to change the name due to trademark concerns.
That's the nature of (most) organized societies. Power to us at the expense of them.
It's annoying, but it's the nature of power and today's US government is no different than a multitiude of governments that have gone before, despite some remarkable experiments in alternative governments.
By the nature of greed and thirst for power, governments that do not possess those attributes become dominated by people who do.
The problem here is that a purported representative republic no longer has officials who represent the public. I've mentioned it before, but there is no accountability to the individual when you represent a few million people; instead, the accountability is to the groups that choose who gets elected -- corporations and the media.
Oh, it's the beginning of the end... but not the end of the corporatocracy. It's the end of the "grand experiment" of the American republic as a republic.
The problem isn't the money to destroy it or alter it's course... the problem is the money to find it.
If we don't know about it until it hits us (the likeliest current situation) then not only do we not get to try and destroy it, but we don't even get to party like it's 1999.