Hey, just just bought two nearly identical barometers from crap-o-mart for $5 each. I put them next to each other in the same room. Imagine my horror when I noticed that their respective readings differ by as much as 10%.
Oh, BTW, 23andme terms of service are clear, at least.
"The laboratory may not be able to process your sample, and the laboratory process may result in errors... Even for processing that meets our high standards, a small, unknown fraction of the data generated during the laboratory process may be un-interpretable or incorrect (referred to as "Errors"..."
Inexpensive direct to consumer DNA testing companies to not provide nor claim to provide results with statistically insignificant error rates. Don't we all already know this?
The results are good enough to do fun things like find previously unknown relatives. To date, I've found three second cousins using 23andme. My ancestry information was likely not perfect but was accurate enough for intended purposes.
One red flag: not recognizing people you know when seeing them out of context. An example is running into a coworker in the mall. In such a scenario, the normal queues that help you identify a particular person are absent. The coworker is dressed causually (not dressed for work). Obviously, the coworker not at his/her desk. No chance to overhear a conversation, so no vocal queues. You get the idea. Something that might not be obvious is that the condition makes it damn near impossible to remember names, since you don't have a good visual memory of anyone you meet. There are certainly worse afflictions, but this one is pretty high up on the suck-o-meter.
W.T.F.? From the article: "Participants were asked to remember a recent conflict they had with someone, such as an argument with a spouse or a fight with a friend.... or any conflict."
Conflict can be anything from arguing about what t.v. show to watch to your neighbor jumping the hedge and beating the crap out of you because he doesn`t like the way you rake your leaves. (Or anything else).
Data was collected via online poll!...really? LOL.
Is this really "the cutting edge in wisdom research"?
This is not science. It's a sad joke.
The patent in question seems to describe a "new use" for existing technology. Assuming that there is no prior art describing this new use, then it's quite possibly a perfectly valid patent. However, wii remote controls are used for gaming, not for determining when an elderly person has fallen (unless there is an old person falling game out there...a horrifying thought to be sure). The provided and rather abbreviated description of Nintendo's defense appears to be exactly this. I'd go with Nintendo. I can't see how they lost this case.
I've seen several reports on this topic. INAL. However, the reason that this topic doesn't come up with great frequency is that the max penalties are quite minor, I believe. According to my understanding, she could be charged for maintaining an unregistered system of records. The penalty is at most a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000. Any other penalties would be civil in nature. Feel free to correct me if need be. The criminal penalties for mishandling classified information are probably far more substantial.
Are you telling me that everyone isn't being subjected the "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" app advert over and over and over and over....? Is that what you're tellin' me? Kardashian's giant cartoon head doesn't haunt the slashdot visits of all slashdotians? Somewhere, some advertising profile indicates that I should be interested in the cartoon rendered head of a vapid cartoon person?! Is THAT my online footprint? God help me! Slashdot, save me. Remove the head! Remove the head!
Yes. Yes. There is something worse, far worse. Indeed it is THE worst. With my every visit to slashdot's website, I'm forced to peer into the empty and soulless eyes of a giant Kim Kardashian cartoon head. Why? Wwwwwwhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Lol. This is an Onion worthy gag-uralism!
Author name: Ben Coxworthy.
Quote from article: "...keeps it from deflating to the point that it becomes limp and unstreamlined. It can be seen in action, in the following video."
Only complaint: didn't include the words "turgid" or "engorged."
All this time, I thought I was just trippin' on acid. Now, what about the walls? Are they really melting into a pool of psychedelicly colored dolphins?
Increased scientific literacy increases sceptism toward those who claim to be the standard bearers of truth. "The more I learn the more I learn how little I know." Some old smart dude said something like this once.
Seems unlikely that the legal arguments presented will stand up to public legal scrutiny. I'm certainly not a lawyer. However, as I read the cited comments about weighing private vs government interests, the cited commentary doesn't appear to suggest that due process can be denied altogether. Rather, the commentary appears to discuss practical issues of war that might have the effect of delaying due process.
Conveniently, the Obama administration lawyers failed to comment on the legal motivation behind the Bush era Guantanamo prisoner military trials. Namely, federal courts ruled that these prisoners had due process rights even though they were enemy combatants and despite the fact that they were not U.S. Citizens.
Both the dates of the legal opinions and news reports describing the Obama administration legal review process clearly show that the Obama administration had ample time and opportunity to engage in judiciary. They just chose not to do so, apparently. Given this, the al Qaida dirtbag's constitutional right to due process was trampled.
Personally, I have 0 sympathy for al awlaki, but clearly Obama signed off on an executive branch doctrine of extra judicial execution of American citizens that could be used to kill just about any American overseas. Asserting that a person is a member of a terrorist group and using that assertion as justification for that person's execution without providing external review and due process is nothing short of tyranny. Granted, if Obama had to violate some American's rights, he probably picked the right person.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for posting link. Nice overview.
Thanks, man! I always get that one a bit wrong.
1. If it's connected, assume you're not protected.
2. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.
3. Avoid any large, angry, crazy man arguing with a vendor over the price of a $6 hot dog.
4. Dumb lawyers who file frivolous lawsuits against multi-billion dollar companies get countersued into bankruptcy.
Really!
Now, get off my lawn you damn kids ... at least the ones that I can prove are not mine!
Hey, just just bought two nearly identical barometers from crap-o-mart for $5 each. I put them next to each other in the same room. Imagine my horror when I noticed that their respective readings differ by as much as 10%.
Oh, BTW, 23andme terms of service are clear, at least.
"The laboratory may not be able to process your sample, and the laboratory process may result in errors ... Even for processing that meets our high standards, a small, unknown fraction of the data generated during the laboratory process may be un-interpretable or incorrect (referred to as "Errors" ..."
Inexpensive direct to consumer DNA testing companies to not provide nor claim to provide results with statistically insignificant error rates. Don't we all already know this?
The results are good enough to do fun things like find previously unknown relatives. To date, I've found three second cousins using 23andme. My ancestry information was likely not perfect but was accurate enough for intended purposes.
LOL
Deep breath..... Ok. @EditorDave, I know that you meant well. Sorry. Didn't mean to yell at you.
Editor changed post to sensationalist crap! The new title is nonsensical. The content of original post hacked up and a mess.
In other news: politicians are corrupt, puppies are cute, and water is wet!
One red flag: not recognizing people you know when seeing them out of context. An example is running into a coworker in the mall. In such a scenario, the normal queues that help you identify a particular person are absent. The coworker is dressed causually (not dressed for work). Obviously, the coworker not at his/her desk. No chance to overhear a conversation, so no vocal queues. You get the idea. Something that might not be obvious is that the condition makes it damn near impossible to remember names, since you don't have a good visual memory of anyone you meet. There are certainly worse afflictions, but this one is pretty high up on the suck-o-meter.
W.T.F.? From the article: "Participants were asked to remember a recent conflict they had with someone, such as an argument with a spouse or a fight with a friend. ... or any conflict."
Conflict can be anything from arguing about what t.v. show to watch to your neighbor jumping the hedge and beating the crap out of you because he doesn`t like the way you rake your leaves. (Or anything else).
Data was collected via online poll! ...really? LOL.
Is this really "the cutting edge in wisdom research"?
This is not science. It's a sad joke.
The patent in question seems to describe a "new use" for existing technology. Assuming that there is no prior art describing this new use, then it's quite possibly a perfectly valid patent. However, wii remote controls are used for gaming, not for determining when an elderly person has fallen (unless there is an old person falling game out there ...a horrifying thought to be sure). The provided and rather abbreviated description of Nintendo's defense appears to be exactly this. I'd go with Nintendo. I can't see how they lost this case.
What would happen if ALL slashdot readers were replaced by way too serious people? ...stupid char length limits.
Almost no one would make fun of this lame what-if post. Oh Crap!
Damn aliens.
Death certificate reads: STOP: 0xDEADBEEF00000000 (ATGCCGCGAATrojan-IM.....)
I've seen several reports on this topic. INAL. However, the reason that this topic doesn't come up with great frequency is that the max penalties are quite minor, I believe. According to my understanding, she could be charged for maintaining an unregistered system of records. The penalty is at most a misdemeanor and fined not more than $5,000. Any other penalties would be civil in nature. Feel free to correct me if need be. The criminal penalties for mishandling classified information are probably far more substantial.
Porn? What does Kim Kardashian have to with... um.... ohhhhh.
Are you telling me that everyone isn't being subjected the "Kim Kardashian: Hollywood" app advert over and over and over and over....? Is that what you're tellin' me? Kardashian's giant cartoon head doesn't haunt the slashdot visits of all slashdotians? Somewhere, some advertising profile indicates that I should be interested in the cartoon rendered head of a vapid cartoon person?! Is THAT my online footprint? God help me! Slashdot, save me. Remove the head! Remove the head!
Yes. Yes. There is something worse, far worse. Indeed it is THE worst. With my every visit to slashdot's website, I'm forced to peer into the empty and soulless eyes of a giant Kim Kardashian cartoon head. Why? Wwwwwwhhhhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyy!
Lol. This is an Onion worthy gag-uralism! Author name: Ben Coxworthy. Quote from article: "...keeps it from deflating to the point that it becomes limp and unstreamlined. It can be seen in action, in the following video." Only complaint: didn't include the words "turgid" or "engorged."
All this time, I thought I was just trippin' on acid. Now, what about the walls? Are they really melting into a pool of psychedelicly colored dolphins?
Increased scientific literacy increases sceptism toward those who claim to be the standard bearers of truth. "The more I learn the more I learn how little I know." Some old smart dude said something like this once.
Seems unlikely that the legal arguments presented will stand up to public legal scrutiny. I'm certainly not a lawyer. However, as I read the cited comments about weighing private vs government interests, the cited commentary doesn't appear to suggest that due process can be denied altogether. Rather, the commentary appears to discuss practical issues of war that might have the effect of delaying due process. Conveniently, the Obama administration lawyers failed to comment on the legal motivation behind the Bush era Guantanamo prisoner military trials. Namely, federal courts ruled that these prisoners had due process rights even though they were enemy combatants and despite the fact that they were not U.S. Citizens. Both the dates of the legal opinions and news reports describing the Obama administration legal review process clearly show that the Obama administration had ample time and opportunity to engage in judiciary. They just chose not to do so, apparently. Given this, the al Qaida dirtbag's constitutional right to due process was trampled. Personally, I have 0 sympathy for al awlaki, but clearly Obama signed off on an executive branch doctrine of extra judicial execution of American citizens that could be used to kill just about any American overseas. Asserting that a person is a member of a terrorist group and using that assertion as justification for that person's execution without providing external review and due process is nothing short of tyranny. Granted, if Obama had to violate some American's rights, he probably picked the right person.