I mean, I guess. Although maybe I'm the one who is being trolled by all the commenters who said that the article had to be bullshit because the rent numbers couldn't possibly be accurate, without reading the title of the graph that indicated that the rent amount was weekly, not monthly.
"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."
"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."
"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."
"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."
The Wikipedia summary of this study is horribly worded and one could easily read it as the zinc lozenge having no effect, which is exactly the opposite of the study's conclusion (that zinc does has a positive effect on cold symptoms). The study's purpose was to determine if zinc lozenges only affect/improve symptoms in the pharyngeal region (the throat) since a lozenge is dissolved in the mouth and throat, or if the zinc has an improvement effect in the nasal region as well where it is not directly dissolved. The study showed that zinc *does* improve symptoms in the nasal region. The conclusion that the Wikipedia article is summarizing was that there was no difference in the effect of the zinc treatment depending on anatomical region - the zinc lozenge improved symptoms in both the throat and the nasal region.
Have you seen what AMD is putting into its next server processors?
http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna...
Tldr: It encrypts a guest's memory with a key that the hypervisor does not have. In theory, it should make a guest VM inaccessible to the hypervisor.
I hate this argument. When terrorism happens, why is the Slashdot response to *immediately* declare that this is simply the brakes and we have to live with it?
There are obviously costs for any kind of safety. For example, products with more safety regulations cost more. But someone decided it was worth it for that product.
Of *course* you can't regulate things to be a "bubble wrap society" and you just have to live with a low percentage of problems. But many people on Slashdot see literally any story about terrorism and immediately throw up their hands and say "There's nothing that can be done, it's a low percentage, we have to just live with it.". I completely disagree. I think heinous, deliberate acts of evil are much worse than accidental deaths caused by cars for example, precisely because they are deliberately committed by a human. They are in a different category, and they *should* be fixable. I agree that trying to police bad actors pre-emptively is probably impossible and will lead to all sorts of surveillance, which is bad. But let's talk about fixing the bad ideology that leads people to commit terrorist acts. It's probably a more difficult problem, but I hate people throwing up their arms. It's bullshit.
32GB is the sweet spot for phones right now, and because they can, Apple refuses to produce a 32GB model to force you to pay an extra $100 to get a reasonable amount of internal storage. $499 for the 64GB model is certainly cheaper than the current top-of-the-line iPhones, but a cheap Android with 32GB of storage can be had for well under $399 for truly budget-conscious buyers. If you're locked into Apple's ecosystem and are truly budget-conscious...well, tough luck.
PS4/XB1's GPUs were already were considered fairly mid-range when they were released in 2013. With a few process node shrinks and 4 years of development, and given the increasing power budgets (and turbo/throttling that comes with that) afforded to mobile devices, I'm not surprised a mobile GPU from 2017 can match or exceed a mid-range GPU from 2013. So what's the point of announcing this? That consoles are going to die and be replaced by VR headsets running Android?
SMP = Symmetric Multi Processing. "Symmetric" refers to the fact that all of the CPUs are considered "equal" by the OS and each has full access to DRAM, IO devices, etc.
SMT = Simultaneous MultiThreading. "Simultaneous" refers to the fact that a single CPU core can process multiple execution threads at the same time.
Someone from AMD's marketing department needs to take CPU architecture 201.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I would say that some amount of knowledge of levels just above and just below your own level is helpful or often necessary to do a job at a particular level.
Using my own example of a computer system:
App developers generally need to know something about how the app framework or OS works.
Framework developers generally need to know how apps interact with their framework/services, and how to interact with the OS.
OS developers have to be very aware of the API and ABI they expose to frameworks/apps, and often many details about the hardware (CPU, GPU, whatever random network card or other device they are working with).
Hardware designers generally need to know how low-level software will interact with them, as well as about the physical design features and limitations (how fast do the transistors and wires run, rules about area and congestion in the integrated circuits, etc.) that the hardware is being built upon.
Physical designers need to know about the general organization of the logic they are implementing (how many ports on this structure, what other blocks of logic does this piece of logic talk to), as well as some about the transistors, wires, capacitance, EM noise, etc. that make up the design.
Process engineers need to know how physical designers are using their transistors and wires, as well as a bunch of stuff about basic physics, chemistry, etc.
So yes, specialization, but some cross-discipline knowledge too.
You picked Pinocchio on purpose because it's probably the closest one you can find. Many other Disney movies are based on material whose copyrights either never existed, or have definitely expired even under current law. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules, Rapunzel, Frozen - all either multi-generational folklore with no actual copyright on the characters or story, or fairy tales published in the 18th and 19th centuries whose copyrights have long since expired.
I'm not disagreeing with your point that their copyright lobbying is hypocritical, but it's pretty much a separate point from the discussion about how much Disney "steals" when they make a derivative work. If it were so easy to take 19th century folk tales and turn them into billion dollar franchises (I mean, you're starting from an existing, known character and story, right? According to Slashdot, that's pretty much the whole thing), I would expect Slashdot to be teeming with billionaire producers and directors fresh off their latest hit.
This is what Disney has been doing all along... from Snow White to The LIttle Mermaid, pretty much everything Disney has ever had success with has been bought, borrowed or stolen. The last original character that Disney created was Mickey Mouse.
I'm really, really sick of hearing this ridiculous argument about Disney films. Did Disney steal all those Little Mermaid songs from the original fairy tale from 150 years ago? Or the animations? Or the voice actors?
No, none of that existed before Disney. The only thing that existed was the short story by Hans Christian Anderson, published in 1837. Guess what? Many films are made based on previously-published stores. 150 years later, Disney comes along and turns it into an animated musical feature film.
If you think the value in The Little Mermaid film was completely from the Hans Christian Anderson short story, by all means, set up shop as a traveling bard retelling HCA fairy tales and see if you can get people to give as much money as they've given Disney for Little Mermaid stuff. If you're right, you can laugh in my face all the way to the bank. But I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you.
That's because with weeklong rentals, the lessor has to go through the trouble of finding a new tenant every week instead of being guaranteed the rent for the year.
And probably more importantly, with shorter-term commitments, the lessor takes on the risk that no one will rent the place the next week and there will be no rental income. So the shorter-term commitments price this risk in via higher rent per day for a shorter commitment.
It's not just rent control. Short-term rentals, such as weekends and week-long rentals that Airbnb deals in, necessarily command a higher price than yearlong or longer commitments. That's because with weeklong rentals, the lessor has to go through the trouble of finding a new tenant every week instead of being guaranteed the rent for the year.
Of course, you can make the argument that the yearlong lessee who then rents his unit to a different occupant every week is putting in the extra effort every week to find a new tenant to realize those profits, and the landlord himself could do the same but chooses not to (he chooses to get the guaranteed yearlong rent instead). But, as was stated above, it's not the lessee's property to decide how it should be rented, so I don't know that this argument holds up.
The reason that people who lost money in Mt Gox can't get their money back isn't because it was in Bitcoin.... The reason people won't get their money back from Mt Gox is because Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank.
Your point is sound (deposit insurance is different from who or what issues a currency), but in practice that distinction doesn't help anyone looking to replace their wealth storage in dollars with something else. The reason Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank is because their deposits are in bitcoin, and FDIC doesn't insure anything that isn't in dollars.
I seriously doubt the US government will start insuring bitcoin deposits because 1) it doesn't control the currency, and 2) because it wants to encourage people to use dollars, not bitcoin. Lack of FDIC insurance on bitcoin is a (major) downside to using bitcoin as a wealth storage replacement.
Note that I'm talking about wealth storage, not short-term transactions. Transactions can be done in whatever currency the two parties agree upon (dollars, bitcoin, Ferraris, head of cattle, whatever). That's been possible since the dawn of trading between two parties and bitcoin is perhaps useful there.
The difference is that deposits in a US bank are insured by the federal government up to some amount. (I'm not sure how it works in other countries but I would be surprised if they didn't have similar arrangements.) Bitcoins are not insured by a government. Yes, the government is going after the individual responsible for committing the theft, but there's no guarantee that those people will get their money back - unlike with a government-issued, government-insured currency.
which means that the managers' efforts increased the size of the endowment by $1.7B.
No one is disputing that the size of the endowment increased by $1.7B. Was it really due to the managers' efforts, or could the fund have increased by $1.7B if invested in a lower cost investment portfolio that *doesn't* take 20% of that growth? Over the last couple years, the market has been strong, and many investments have done well. I could support paying the managers 20% of whatever growth they generate above and beyond some normative benchmark, like the S&P 500. That would be a measure of the managers true effect. Oh, and while we're at it, why don't we say that if the fund ends up doing worse than the S&P 500 due to the managers efforts, claw back some of that 2% fee too.
Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line? It will likely cause earthquakes but hopefully they would be minor, and would relieve the pressure a little bit at a time, instead of all at once.
A two-car household is a common scenario, at least in the US (basically a two-adult household where most things are shared, like two married people for example), so the expense of having a second car is not an additional expense since both adults want/need a car anyway. In the two-car household, at least one of the cars is a commuter car. The other car may be a commuter car or may be a "family car" like a minivan/SUV. There's basically no reason why the commuter car can't be electric.
The other common situation that you're talking about is a one-car situation comprised of a single unmarried/unattached person not sharing cars with anyone else. In this case, I agree, there are a good number of reasons why you may not want your only car to be an electric.
There's nothing wrong with SOME diversion and trade of a natural resource. But there is something VERY wrong with doing it when you have a limited resource like fresh water that is being used badly.
Who determines what is a bad use and what is a good use? You? I claim that burning gasoline in your car is a bad use of the resources of the Middle East/Texas/Venezuela/Dakotas.
comparative advantage [snip]
You're right, it's not comparative advantage, it's absolute advantage, which is even stronger. The Great Lakes has an absolute advantage in water production, but the southwest has a huge absolute advantage in solar power production.
How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?
So then, we should avoid building cities in the Great Lakes region, where it gets really cold in winter and people have to use natural gas that was mined in Texas and the Dakotas?
There's this thing called comparitive advantage. The southwest has tons of potential for producing solar energy, let's not shut down development there yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I mean, I guess. Although maybe I'm the one who is being trolled by all the commenters who said that the article had to be bullshit because the rent numbers couldn't possibly be accurate, without reading the title of the graph that indicated that the rent amount was weekly, not monthly.
Actually clicked through to the article, only to skip reading just about any of it.
False.
From a study dated 2015 Feb 25:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/
"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."
"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."
From the most recent study from that Wikipedia page, dated 2015 Feb 25:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4359576/
"Zinc acetate lozenges shortened the duration of nasal discharge by 34% (95% CI: 17% to 51%), nasal congestion by 37% (15% to 58%), sneezing by 22% (1% to 45%), scratchy throat by 33% (8% to 59%), sore throat by 18% (10% to 46%), hoarseness by 43% (3% to 83%), and cough by 46% (28% to 64%). Zinc lozenges shortened the duration of muscle ache by 54% (18% to 89%), but there was no difference in the duration of headache and fever."
"Given that the adverse effects of zinc in the three trials were minor, zinc acetate lozenges releasing zinc ions at doses of about 80mg/day may be a useful treatment for the common cold, started within 24hours, for a time period of less than two weeks."
The Wikipedia summary of this study is horribly worded and one could easily read it as the zinc lozenge having no effect, which is exactly the opposite of the study's conclusion (that zinc does has a positive effect on cold symptoms). The study's purpose was to determine if zinc lozenges only affect/improve symptoms in the pharyngeal region (the throat) since a lozenge is dissolved in the mouth and throat, or if the zinc has an improvement effect in the nasal region as well where it is not directly dissolved. The study showed that zinc *does* improve symptoms in the nasal region. The conclusion that the Wikipedia article is summarizing was that there was no difference in the effect of the zinc treatment depending on anatomical region - the zinc lozenge improved symptoms in both the throat and the nasal region.
Have you seen what AMD is putting into its next server processors? http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna... Tldr: It encrypts a guest's memory with a key that the hypervisor does not have. In theory, it should make a guest VM inaccessible to the hypervisor.
I hate this argument. When terrorism happens, why is the Slashdot response to *immediately* declare that this is simply the brakes and we have to live with it?
There are obviously costs for any kind of safety. For example, products with more safety regulations cost more. But someone decided it was worth it for that product.
Of *course* you can't regulate things to be a "bubble wrap society" and you just have to live with a low percentage of problems. But many people on Slashdot see literally any story about terrorism and immediately throw up their hands and say "There's nothing that can be done, it's a low percentage, we have to just live with it.". I completely disagree. I think heinous, deliberate acts of evil are much worse than accidental deaths caused by cars for example, precisely because they are deliberately committed by a human. They are in a different category, and they *should* be fixable. I agree that trying to police bad actors pre-emptively is probably impossible and will lead to all sorts of surveillance, which is bad. But let's talk about fixing the bad ideology that leads people to commit terrorist acts. It's probably a more difficult problem, but I hate people throwing up their arms. It's bullshit.
But it takes work.
It takes time. Time is not free. Especially if you're poor and are working a bunch of hours/jobs to pay rent, utilities, afford some sort of food.
How is this flamebait?
32GB is the sweet spot for phones right now, and because they can, Apple refuses to produce a 32GB model to force you to pay an extra $100 to get a reasonable amount of internal storage. $499 for the 64GB model is certainly cheaper than the current top-of-the-line iPhones, but a cheap Android with 32GB of storage can be had for well under $399 for truly budget-conscious buyers. If you're locked into Apple's ecosystem and are truly budget-conscious...well, tough luck.
PS4/XB1's GPUs were already were considered fairly mid-range when they were released in 2013. With a few process node shrinks and 4 years of development, and given the increasing power budgets (and turbo/throttling that comes with that) afforded to mobile devices, I'm not surprised a mobile GPU from 2017 can match or exceed a mid-range GPU from 2013. So what's the point of announcing this? That consoles are going to die and be replaced by VR headsets running Android?
SMP = Symmetric Multi Processing. "Symmetric" refers to the fact that all of the CPUs are considered "equal" by the OS and each has full access to DRAM, IO devices, etc.
SMT = Simultaneous MultiThreading. "Simultaneous" refers to the fact that a single CPU core can process multiple execution threads at the same time.
Someone from AMD's marketing department needs to take CPU architecture 201.
I agree with your general sentiment, but I would say that some amount of knowledge of levels just above and just below your own level is helpful or often necessary to do a job at a particular level.
Using my own example of a computer system:
So yes, specialization, but some cross-discipline knowledge too.
You picked Pinocchio on purpose because it's probably the closest one you can find. Many other Disney movies are based on material whose copyrights either never existed, or have definitely expired even under current law. The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, Pocahontas, Mulan, Hercules, Rapunzel, Frozen - all either multi-generational folklore with no actual copyright on the characters or story, or fairy tales published in the 18th and 19th centuries whose copyrights have long since expired.
I'm not disagreeing with your point that their copyright lobbying is hypocritical, but it's pretty much a separate point from the discussion about how much Disney "steals" when they make a derivative work. If it were so easy to take 19th century folk tales and turn them into billion dollar franchises (I mean, you're starting from an existing, known character and story, right? According to Slashdot, that's pretty much the whole thing), I would expect Slashdot to be teeming with billionaire producers and directors fresh off their latest hit.
This is what Disney has been doing all along... from Snow White to The LIttle Mermaid, pretty much everything Disney has ever had success with has been bought, borrowed or stolen. The last original character that Disney created was Mickey Mouse.
I'm really, really sick of hearing this ridiculous argument about Disney films. Did Disney steal all those Little Mermaid songs from the original fairy tale from 150 years ago? Or the animations? Or the voice actors?
No, none of that existed before Disney. The only thing that existed was the short story by Hans Christian Anderson, published in 1837. Guess what? Many films are made based on previously-published stores. 150 years later, Disney comes along and turns it into an animated musical feature film.
If you think the value in The Little Mermaid film was completely from the Hans Christian Anderson short story, by all means, set up shop as a traveling bard retelling HCA fairy tales and see if you can get people to give as much money as they've given Disney for Little Mermaid stuff. If you're right, you can laugh in my face all the way to the bank. But I wouldn't quit my day job if I were you.
That's because with weeklong rentals, the lessor has to go through the trouble of finding a new tenant every week instead of being guaranteed the rent for the year.
And probably more importantly, with shorter-term commitments, the lessor takes on the risk that no one will rent the place the next week and there will be no rental income. So the shorter-term commitments price this risk in via higher rent per day for a shorter commitment.
It's not just rent control. Short-term rentals, such as weekends and week-long rentals that Airbnb deals in, necessarily command a higher price than yearlong or longer commitments. That's because with weeklong rentals, the lessor has to go through the trouble of finding a new tenant every week instead of being guaranteed the rent for the year.
Of course, you can make the argument that the yearlong lessee who then rents his unit to a different occupant every week is putting in the extra effort every week to find a new tenant to realize those profits, and the landlord himself could do the same but chooses not to (he chooses to get the guaranteed yearlong rent instead). But, as was stated above, it's not the lessee's property to decide how it should be rented, so I don't know that this argument holds up.
The reason that people who lost money in Mt Gox can't get their money back isn't because it was in Bitcoin. ... The reason people won't get their money back from Mt Gox is because Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank.
Your point is sound (deposit insurance is different from who or what issues a currency), but in practice that distinction doesn't help anyone looking to replace their wealth storage in dollars with something else. The reason Mt Gox isn't an FDIC insured bank is because their deposits are in bitcoin, and FDIC doesn't insure anything that isn't in dollars.
I seriously doubt the US government will start insuring bitcoin deposits because 1) it doesn't control the currency, and 2) because it wants to encourage people to use dollars, not bitcoin. Lack of FDIC insurance on bitcoin is a (major) downside to using bitcoin as a wealth storage replacement.
Note that I'm talking about wealth storage, not short-term transactions. Transactions can be done in whatever currency the two parties agree upon (dollars, bitcoin, Ferraris, head of cattle, whatever). That's been possible since the dawn of trading between two parties and bitcoin is perhaps useful there.
The difference is that deposits in a US bank are insured by the federal government up to some amount. (I'm not sure how it works in other countries but I would be surprised if they didn't have similar arrangements.) Bitcoins are not insured by a government. Yes, the government is going after the individual responsible for committing the theft, but there's no guarantee that those people will get their money back - unlike with a government-issued, government-insured currency.
which means that the managers' efforts increased the size of the endowment by $1.7B.
No one is disputing that the size of the endowment increased by $1.7B. Was it really due to the managers' efforts, or could the fund have increased by $1.7B if invested in a lower cost investment portfolio that *doesn't* take 20% of that growth? Over the last couple years, the market has been strong, and many investments have done well. I could support paying the managers 20% of whatever growth they generate above and beyond some normative benchmark, like the S&P 500. That would be a measure of the managers true effect. Oh, and while we're at it, why don't we say that if the fund ends up doing worse than the S&P 500 due to the managers efforts, claw back some of that 2% fee too.
I'm not sure what you're claiming. Are you saying that the earthquakes in OK/TX aren't tectonic-plate earthquakes? Because I'm pretty sure they are.
Why not take out of Oklahoma's or Texas's playbook and do some fracking near the fault line? It will likely cause earthquakes but hopefully they would be minor, and would relieve the pressure a little bit at a time, instead of all at once.
A two-car household is a common scenario, at least in the US (basically a two-adult household where most things are shared, like two married people for example), so the expense of having a second car is not an additional expense since both adults want/need a car anyway. In the two-car household, at least one of the cars is a commuter car. The other car may be a commuter car or may be a "family car" like a minivan/SUV. There's basically no reason why the commuter car can't be electric.
The other common situation that you're talking about is a one-car situation comprised of a single unmarried/unattached person not sharing cars with anyone else. In this case, I agree, there are a good number of reasons why you may not want your only car to be an electric.
http://rs1img.memecdn.com/why-...
There's nothing wrong with SOME diversion and trade of a natural resource. But there is something VERY wrong with doing it when you have a limited resource like fresh water that is being used badly.
Who determines what is a bad use and what is a good use? You? I claim that burning gasoline in your car is a bad use of the resources of the Middle East/Texas/Venezuela/Dakotas.
comparative advantage [snip]
You're right, it's not comparative advantage, it's absolute advantage, which is even stronger. The Great Lakes has an absolute advantage in water production, but the southwest has a huge absolute advantage in solar power production.
How about, instead of massive engineering projects, we just don't build cities where there aren't enough natural resources to sustain them?
So then, we should avoid building cities in the Great Lakes region, where it gets really cold in winter and people have to use natural gas that was mined in Texas and the Dakotas?
There's this thing called comparitive advantage. The southwest has tons of potential for producing solar energy, let's not shut down development there yet.