What???
I'm not exited because we can finally force graduate level engineering courses on the American masses.
I'm exited because there may be someone in rural Sir Lanka or Cameroon or wherever else who can use this to make me a flying car.
And I'm excited because in a few minutes I'll start watching my third Stanford CS course on the bus on my way to work. And I live in Norway.
Also, keep in mind that a growing number of universities are making video lectures of complete courses available on the internet. Stanford University, for example, has uploaded a number of courses to youtube [ http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=stanforduniversity ]. One of them is CS106A, their introductory programming course (taught in Java). Might be too basic for you, but I'm just saying, it's out there.
Of course, in programming there is no substitute for practice, practice, and more while(1){ Practice();};-)
How hard can it be to determine whether there is actually any circulation in the finger on the sensor while reading the print? They already use lasers to measure blood flow, and it's not like we need a very accurate measurement. A fairly rough likelihood of being alive or dead would do.
Well, take a look at the current ratings of his films at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/
House of the Dead: User Rating: 2.0/10 Bottom 100: #35
Alone in the Dark: 2.2/10 Bottom 100: #64
BloodRayne: 2.6/10
Seed: 1.9/10 Bottom 100: #30
BloodRayne 2.6/10
BloodRayne II 2.3/10 Bottom 100: #76
Of course, statistics is one thing, but you can't truly appreciate how painfully bad they are until you actually watch one. Alone in the dark did it for me. Even now, three years later, I still get angry just thinking about how he violated one of my cherished childhood gaming memories.
We can have a brain that's fully deterministic at a microscopic level without doing away with free will, if we assume that our brains operate in non-linear conditions [wikipedia.org]. No, we can't. Chaos doesn't allow for a causal or non-deterministic effect of counsciousnes. It seimply means that the final state of the system cannot be predicted based on initial conditions, usually because these initial conditions can't be measured precisely enough. However, all the steps in the process are still completely deterministic. There is no more need or room for free will in a deterministic and chaotic brain than there is in complex meterological system.
Or said another way, in which step in the nonlinear but completely deterministic chain of brain events does "free will" take place?
Oh?
Preventing a global pandemic seems like the sort of thing both governments and tax payers may care about.
And as someone working in our national institute of public health, I can assure you that we are working on developing vaccines, and are doing so without the same focus on financial reward as major drug companies have.
So, while while I agree, you don't cure a pandemic for free, you don't need to make a huge profit on it either.
This isn't about Darwin vs. Lamarck and errors and paradigm shifts in science along the path to truth and knowledge. It's about whether the tiny correlation between the number of beetroots eaten weekly and the prevalence of colon cancer is statistically significant in your particular sample. If it is, you can bet your colon the next group to send out their questionnaires won't find it, because it was probably just an artefact to begin with.
Epidemiology is a field most readers here probably wouldn't even consider science, so its a little grand to claim that this is just how science works. Many scientists make a living just applying simple statistical methods to what for all practical purposes amounts to pure noise, making their findings equally random and unthrustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
What??? I'm not exited because we can finally force graduate level engineering courses on the American masses. I'm exited because there may be someone in rural Sir Lanka or Cameroon or wherever else who can use this to make me a flying car. And I'm excited because in a few minutes I'll start watching my third Stanford CS course on the bus on my way to work. And I live in Norway.
Also, keep in mind that a growing number of universities are making video lectures of complete courses available on the internet. Stanford University, for example, has uploaded a number of courses to youtube [ http://www.youtube.com/profile_play_list?user=stanforduniversity ]. One of them is CS106A, their introductory programming course (taught in Java). Might be too basic for you, but I'm just saying, it's out there. Of course, in programming there is no substitute for practice, practice, and more while(1){ Practice();} ;-)
Yet another reason to use fingerprints. Identical twins don't have identical prints.
How hard can it be to determine whether there is actually any circulation in the finger on the sensor while reading the print? They already use lasers to measure blood flow, and it's not like we need a very accurate measurement. A fairly rough likelihood of being alive or dead would do.
Well, take a look at the current ratings of his films at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/
House of the Dead: User Rating: 2.0/10 Bottom 100: #35
Alone in the Dark: 2.2/10 Bottom 100: #64
BloodRayne: 2.6/10
Seed: 1.9/10 Bottom 100: #30
BloodRayne 2.6/10
BloodRayne II 2.3/10 Bottom 100: #76
Of course, statistics is one thing, but you can't truly appreciate how painfully bad they are until you actually watch one. Alone in the dark did it for me. Even now, three years later, I still get angry just thinking about how he violated one of my cherished childhood gaming memories.
Oh?
Preventing a global pandemic seems like the sort of thing both governments and tax payers may care about. And as someone working in our national institute of public health, I can assure you that we are working on developing vaccines, and are doing so without the same focus on financial reward as major drug companies have.
So, while while I agree, you don't cure a pandemic for free, you don't need to make a huge profit on it either.
This isn't about Darwin vs. Lamarck and errors and paradigm shifts in science along the path to truth and knowledge. It's about whether the tiny correlation between the number of beetroots eaten weekly and the prevalence of colon cancer is statistically significant in your particular sample. If it is, you can bet your colon the next group to send out their questionnaires won't find it, because it was probably just an artefact to begin with. Epidemiology is a field most readers here probably wouldn't even consider science, so its a little grand to claim that this is just how science works. Many scientists make a living just applying simple statistical methods to what for all practical purposes amounts to pure noise, making their findings equally random and unthrustworthy.