You only have the tip of the iceberg, here. The truth of our current landscape in research is that all animal models are grossly inadequate for a complete understanding of human physiology.
Even chimpanzees exhibit millions of minute differences in gene structure and chemical pathways that add up to millions more possible reasons for experimental outcomes.
So really, every simulation is going to fall short of giving scientists a fully dependable conclusion.
Sun may have some current research that will produce valuable results down the road. Especially since they consider their stock grossly undervalued. I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM come back with another offer - they've tasted the bitter fruit of a lost opportunity before...
I think it would have been better to fund a survey of 500 accountants. Economists are theorists, but accountants deal with hard data every day. It's like faith vs. science....IMHO
Pani (Alleged Thief) may have been involved in partial involvement in the design, and therefore wanted to keep a record of the end product of his work. Of course, he told authorities it was because he was "curious".
I would like to see them pushing consumer multi-core computing more...
I disagree. Consumers don't need more cores; they need more balls. Once SSD usage becomes more proliferative in the server sector, the bottleneck to computing looks to exist primarily in information delivery, i.e. internet/cable. The average consumer spends most of his/her time on the internet now. And more users need to get up and start demanding better/faster connectivity for their money.
morgan_greywolf, up there, attacks the other issue: programs need to make better use of multiple cores AND (I'll add) 64-bit technology.
These clandestine moves are all excellent ideas for those of [us] that are handling large stashes, but it seems to me that this bill actually helps the average 100MB, row-boat pirate (ie. moms of dumb kids).
Please offer an antithesis if you have one, but this bill seems to lump the responsibility of enforcement on the Attorney General. And recently, (esp. in the Bush Administration) enforcement has been curtailed, leaving only certain crimes to be pursued by the nations limited man-power. And the AG may genuflect to record companies from time to time, but as long as there's still a healthy war on drugs, this issue will likely take a back seat in the AG's office.
The bill may have been initiated for the purpose of protecting ordinary people, because now the government has to delegate attorneys, and they're not going to waste time and money on small payloads (unlike the RIAA)."
This is okay for the rest of us too, because not many of us have the assets to make a civil case worth government's time, and it seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) in the wording of the bill that we don't have to worry about criminal cases... Hooray for healthy sphincters!
Good point. I might add, though, that this is the same across all studies. It's pretty hard to find a text book that is well written and designed to "grow" with your experience. But my suggestion to any student is to ask every engineer or engineering major you know about the books they've used and if they are any good. When you find one that looks good, just buy it, even if none of your professors use it. It's a bit of a gamble, but the pay off is like a Mario 3 warp wistle.
"...the Judge was looking at either ignoring the laws..."
Or, maybe the Judge knew that it wasn't economical for you apeal and try to fight it with a better lawyer, so she wasn't afraid to take the easy path? IANAL and that is just a guess. But I'm just as cranky as you are about our legal system - I think it's way too oligarchical (to put it very simply).
Ah, so you are now in biomedical research. So, do you know, then, how distant the end user (the patient) tends to be from the researcher? When you work in any other science, you are often very involved with your subject, and notice how weather events and their data are broadcast. Now, notice the many factors in the poor communication and slow production of biomedical data: Information is hidden before publishing, because no one wants to let anyone else take credit (ok, logical...); some information is witheld after publishing, because no one wants their "blips" to cause doubt --> leads to lack of productive peer-review; the "funding allocated by those who don't have a clue" doesn't result enough in more papers per term or per dollar - it's spent on unnecessary equipment rather than additional "brains"; drugs are the end goal, and their nature is determined by profit and application of patent - only tertiarily on effectiveness or need; researchers often don't even care about the end user, due to their detachment from patients; and lead researchers are often just as consumed by grant proposals as actual research (like politicians, a quarter of their working lives are just spent asking for money!).
We're all aware of how unconscionably huge the defense budget is, and I agree: money, in of itself, doesn't make ANY problems go away. However, I'd like to draw your attention to the PEOPLE who spend that money and the PEOPLE who use that money. Military personel seem to be more effective. Per dollar, I'd venture to say that the defense budget produces more results than the biomedical research budget: While staging a massive occupation of a foreign country and facing horrible opposition (ie. sand storms and sacrificial bombers) our military is still able to fund research that results in deploying advanced robotic devices, telecom systems, AND several new vehicle designs, (not to mention the massive mercinary force they've hired). Regardless of political reaction to that budget, I'd say that its involvment in research is as effective as it's users (the military) would like it to be.
Finally, let's confront your idea of the organism being studied. Yes, it's complex, but have you forgotten how much more complex and effective a properly organized population of organisms can be? Your computers are a miniscule part of the broad equation, here. Consdering how many researchers we have in biomedicine, world-wide, if they all spent their time on just doing the research, and they could spend their money on additional researchers instead of overpriced materials, AND their information was as readily distributed as linux code, we could be confirming a great deal more intercellular and intracellular processes than we do now. And then those many results could be applied to new drugs by companies with an interest in effectiveness and not bogged down by the aforementioned research costs; and better drugs would be sold for better prices.
Yes, I may be dreaming, but if you want to, you can remain ignorant to the "noise". I intend to learn what I can from it and continue contributing results.
It really shouldn't be as bad for us as all that. Consider all the research being done on [cancer] world-wide; there are millions of bright people investing burn-out weeks on this research, and we ARE making progress, but it's piecemeal. I think that our friend at Intel is right in criticizing our bio-research; that is, I hope it lights a fire under several assses. But he really isn't knocking on the right door. This is very important: do enough people know how e-fucking-xorbitant the pricing is for lab materials, supplies, and reagents? I stand by my adjective choice (bent over, of course) and request the K-Y... Biomedical research chews through mountains of money every year, and so much of it is just a waste. As for brilliant minds, the structure of competition and cooperation in bio-research is somewhat different from other sciences, and it is a horrible system. So, in short, the system needs to change, and the more people railing about it, I think, the better.
Thanks - let me cut off this stream of continuing reverse-psychology by pointing out that your logic ends with EVERYTHING being suspected as a bomb. Instead of becoming this paranoid, people should take the step of inspecting things closer and use simple reasoning in the process. If you really are confused, you just ask someone in the area, as I considered. But in my case I'm savvy enough about reasearch devices to be able to rule out certain complexities as bomb devices.
People, en masse, are indeed stupid. (Should I reference Nietzsche?) How ironic that this should come up today; I came into work this morning, and took the back stairway as I usually do, but I passed some wierd looking device that was sitting in the corner of the hallway. The device had been there the evening before, when I left, and it had been "running" throughout the night. It had several hoses coming off of it and I had no idea what it was used for - and I know about ALL KINDS of strange devices in my business (biomedical/biochemical research). So the question arose in my mind: "Should I ask someone who works nearby if they know what this is?...It could be a...bomb... and I know some groups that would seriously consider our area for a bomb..." But here's where I drew the line: I examined it for a moment, and decided, "This device is way too complex for a terrorist bomb or a prank." So I just went on my way. Here's why: If a terrorist is going to plant a bomb somewhere, isn't it obvious wisdom to NOT draw attention to it? What kind of dumb-ass does it take to have the knowledge to build a significant bomb, place it without getting caught in the process, but make it horrifyingly obvious that it is a bomb?
...are really not enough for security. I work at a building that I need keycard access to, but cards eventually become worn and some break so that they cannot be displayed anymore, and the company won't pay for a new one every time that happens. So there are two results: People don't wear them explicitly, and people don't question who they are letting into the front door behind them. I'm personally in favor of having a guard stationed at a single entry, at least for larger buildings; someone who can recognize people's faces and can be held responsible for stopping people he doesn't know....There's the danger of him being an asshole, but I'd be willing to take that chance.
Holy Shit; you're right! Give this man a gold star! So, not ONLY did "they" fail at converting people by brute force, but "they" were ultimately persuaded to renounce parts of their own dogma. However, let's keep in mind the actual "cahtolicism" of the Catholic Church; meaning, the Pope says one thing, but a large population of Catholics practice quite differently.
Go ahead; throw stones. But the truth of the matter is that there is probably a significant number of Americans that really do want to hear all candidates' views on current science, regardless of their religious affiliation. Even wackos want to know what to go wacko about... However, while we're finding someone to blame for the rejection of a science debate, how about we blame the large number of slashdotters that take the position of alienating religious people from science by forcing the axiom that science actually disproves religion. I've a feeling that if we didn't bludgeon others with our current theory and hypothesies but simply proselytized more benevolently, we might actually have an educational effect on people. (This, of course gos for religious wackos as well...) Brute force didn't work for the Cahtolic Church; why should it work for us?
Your point is agreeable, but I think it lacks some refinement: "The Media" can be ambiguous, because some media groups are less powerful than others, and people most often make a dichotomous choice concerning the media they follow - they either read mostly media they agree with already, or they read mostly media they don't agree with. (Some people actually like to get pissed off about what the other side is saying...) That's just people for you. The nice thing about the wisdom of crowds is that it is less biased due to equal access by conflicting viewpoints - sort of a ying and yang thing. I would, however, venture to say that money is the thing you are getting at that causes bias in wisdom of crowds. (Well, that and stupidity...) Use of money often turns more heads or covers bad reputations. (ex. Rupert Murdoch, Walmart, etc.) Note the chart of political futures used by the writer of TFA. Q. Who tends to be closer to the top? (A. $$) I'm sure it's not quite that simple, though - the cause/effect could be reversed.
Slashdot Mirror
Even chimpanzees exhibit millions of minute differences in gene structure and chemical pathways that add up to millions more possible reasons for experimental outcomes.
So really, every simulation is going to fall short of giving scientists a fully dependable conclusion.
Sun may have some current research that will produce valuable results down the road. Especially since they consider their stock grossly undervalued. I wouldn't be surprised to see IBM come back with another offer - they've tasted the bitter fruit of a lost opportunity before...
Zealots from every corner are wrong, and spread FUD, it's what they do... the truth is generally somewhere in the middle.
So, if you're a zealot from the middle, does that make you right? ...And is it right for a zealot for the middle to spread FUD in the corners?
Looks to me like both crews did their jobs well... too well.
Hmmm... A prostitute that gets turned down after a lot of attention and a price drop... Could there be an STD in the mix?
Try "Iceweasel"...
I think it would have been better to fund a survey of 500 accountants. Economists are theorists, but accountants deal with hard data every day. It's like faith vs. science. ...IMHO
Pani (Alleged Thief) may have been involved in partial involvement in the design, and therefore wanted to keep a record of the end product of his work. Of course, he told authorities it was because he was "curious".
I would like to see them pushing consumer multi-core computing more...
I disagree. Consumers don't need more cores; they need more balls. Once SSD usage becomes more proliferative in the server sector, the bottleneck to computing looks to exist primarily in information delivery, i.e. internet/cable. The average consumer spends most of his/her time on the internet now. And more users need to get up and start demanding better/faster connectivity for their money.
morgan_greywolf, up there, attacks the other issue: programs need to make better use of multiple cores AND (I'll add) 64-bit technology.
Even polygraph tests are subject to considerable controversy, yet they are still considered in a ruling.
Mod all Anonymous Cowards down...
These clandestine moves are all excellent ideas for those of [us] that are handling large stashes, but it seems to me that this bill actually helps the average 100MB, row-boat pirate (ie. moms of dumb kids).
Please offer an antithesis if you have one, but this bill seems to lump the responsibility of enforcement on the Attorney General. And recently, (esp. in the Bush Administration) enforcement has been curtailed, leaving only certain crimes to be pursued by the nations limited man-power. And the AG may genuflect to record companies from time to time, but as long as there's still a healthy war on drugs, this issue will likely take a back seat in the AG's office.
The bill may have been initiated for the purpose of protecting ordinary people, because now the government has to delegate attorneys, and they're not going to waste time and money on small payloads (unlike the RIAA)."
This is okay for the rest of us too, because not many of us have the assets to make a civil case worth government's time, and it seems to me (maybe I'm wrong) in the wording of the bill that we don't have to worry about criminal cases... Hooray for healthy sphincters!
They're space-time cops too. Led by Sylvester Stalone, Gene Simmons and Lars Ulrich.
...that the "other" solar system is just a warped reflection of our own, or worse: an evil twin solar system...
Good point. I might add, though, that this is the same across all studies. It's pretty hard to find a text book that is well written and designed to "grow" with your experience. But my suggestion to any student is to ask every engineer or engineering major you know about the books they've used and if they are any good. When you find one that looks good, just buy it, even if none of your professors use it. It's a bit of a gamble, but the pay off is like a Mario 3 warp wistle.
Or, maybe the Judge knew that it wasn't economical for you apeal and try to fight it with a better lawyer, so she wasn't afraid to take the easy path? IANAL and that is just a guess. But I'm just as cranky as you are about our legal system - I think it's way too oligarchical (to put it very simply).
Ah, so you are now in biomedical research. So, do you know, then, how distant the end user (the patient) tends to be from the researcher? When you work in any other science, you are often very involved with your subject, and notice how weather events and their data are broadcast. Now, notice the many factors in the poor communication and slow production of biomedical data: Information is hidden before publishing, because no one wants to let anyone else take credit (ok, logical...); some information is witheld after publishing, because no one wants their "blips" to cause doubt --> leads to lack of productive peer-review; the "funding allocated by those who don't have a clue" doesn't result enough in more papers per term or per dollar - it's spent on unnecessary equipment rather than additional "brains"; drugs are the end goal, and their nature is determined by profit and application of patent - only tertiarily on effectiveness or need; researchers often don't even care about the end user, due to their detachment from patients; and lead researchers are often just as consumed by grant proposals as actual research (like politicians, a quarter of their working lives are just spent asking for money!). We're all aware of how unconscionably huge the defense budget is, and I agree: money, in of itself, doesn't make ANY problems go away. However, I'd like to draw your attention to the PEOPLE who spend that money and the PEOPLE who use that money. Military personel seem to be more effective. Per dollar, I'd venture to say that the defense budget produces more results than the biomedical research budget: While staging a massive occupation of a foreign country and facing horrible opposition (ie. sand storms and sacrificial bombers) our military is still able to fund research that results in deploying advanced robotic devices, telecom systems, AND several new vehicle designs, (not to mention the massive mercinary force they've hired). Regardless of political reaction to that budget, I'd say that its involvment in research is as effective as it's users (the military) would like it to be. Finally, let's confront your idea of the organism being studied. Yes, it's complex, but have you forgotten how much more complex and effective a properly organized population of organisms can be? Your computers are a miniscule part of the broad equation, here. Consdering how many researchers we have in biomedicine, world-wide, if they all spent their time on just doing the research, and they could spend their money on additional researchers instead of overpriced materials, AND their information was as readily distributed as linux code, we could be confirming a great deal more intercellular and intracellular processes than we do now. And then those many results could be applied to new drugs by companies with an interest in effectiveness and not bogged down by the aforementioned research costs; and better drugs would be sold for better prices. Yes, I may be dreaming, but if you want to, you can remain ignorant to the "noise". I intend to learn what I can from it and continue contributing results.
It really shouldn't be as bad for us as all that. Consider all the research being done on [cancer] world-wide; there are millions of bright people investing burn-out weeks on this research, and we ARE making progress, but it's piecemeal. I think that our friend at Intel is right in criticizing our bio-research; that is, I hope it lights a fire under several assses. But he really isn't knocking on the right door. This is very important: do enough people know how e-fucking-xorbitant the pricing is for lab materials, supplies, and reagents? I stand by my adjective choice (bent over, of course) and request the K-Y... Biomedical research chews through mountains of money every year, and so much of it is just a waste. As for brilliant minds, the structure of competition and cooperation in bio-research is somewhat different from other sciences, and it is a horrible system. So, in short, the system needs to change, and the more people railing about it, I think, the better.
Thanks - let me cut off this stream of continuing reverse-psychology by pointing out that your logic ends with EVERYTHING being suspected as a bomb. Instead of becoming this paranoid, people should take the step of inspecting things closer and use simple reasoning in the process. If you really are confused, you just ask someone in the area, as I considered. But in my case I'm savvy enough about reasearch devices to be able to rule out certain complexities as bomb devices.
People, en masse, are indeed stupid. (Should I reference Nietzsche?) How ironic that this should come up today; I came into work this morning, and took the back stairway as I usually do, but I passed some wierd looking device that was sitting in the corner of the hallway. The device had been there the evening before, when I left, and it had been "running" throughout the night. It had several hoses coming off of it and I had no idea what it was used for - and I know about ALL KINDS of strange devices in my business (biomedical/biochemical research). So the question arose in my mind: "Should I ask someone who works nearby if they know what this is? ...It could be a ...bomb... and I know some groups that would seriously consider our area for a bomb..." But here's where I drew the line: I examined it for a moment, and decided, "This device is way too complex for a terrorist bomb or a prank." So I just went on my way. Here's why: If a terrorist is going to plant a bomb somewhere, isn't it obvious wisdom to NOT draw attention to it? What kind of dumb-ass does it take to have the knowledge to build a significant bomb, place it without getting caught in the process, but make it horrifyingly obvious that it is a bomb?
...are really not enough for security. I work at a building that I need keycard access to, but cards eventually become worn and some break so that they cannot be displayed anymore, and the company won't pay for a new one every time that happens. So there are two results: People don't wear them explicitly, and people don't question who they are letting into the front door behind them. I'm personally in favor of having a guard stationed at a single entry, at least for larger buildings; someone who can recognize people's faces and can be held responsible for stopping people he doesn't know. ...There's the danger of him being an asshole, but I'd be willing to take that chance.
Holy Shit; you're right! Give this man a gold star! So, not ONLY did "they" fail at converting people by brute force, but "they" were ultimately persuaded to renounce parts of their own dogma. However, let's keep in mind the actual "cahtolicism" of the Catholic Church; meaning, the Pope says one thing, but a large population of Catholics practice quite differently.
Gaius Baltar.
Go ahead; throw stones. But the truth of the matter is that there is probably a significant number of Americans that really do want to hear all candidates' views on current science, regardless of their religious affiliation. Even wackos want to know what to go wacko about... However, while we're finding someone to blame for the rejection of a science debate, how about we blame the large number of slashdotters that take the position of alienating religious people from science by forcing the axiom that science actually disproves religion. I've a feeling that if we didn't bludgeon others with our current theory and hypothesies but simply proselytized more benevolently, we might actually have an educational effect on people. (This, of course gos for religious wackos as well...) Brute force didn't work for the Cahtolic Church; why should it work for us?
Your point is agreeable, but I think it lacks some refinement: "The Media" can be ambiguous, because some media groups are less powerful than others, and people most often make a dichotomous choice concerning the media they follow - they either read mostly media they agree with already, or they read mostly media they don't agree with. (Some people actually like to get pissed off about what the other side is saying...) That's just people for you. The nice thing about the wisdom of crowds is that it is less biased due to equal access by conflicting viewpoints - sort of a ying and yang thing. I would, however, venture to say that money is the thing you are getting at that causes bias in wisdom of crowds. (Well, that and stupidity...) Use of money often turns more heads or covers bad reputations. (ex. Rupert Murdoch, Walmart, etc.) Note the chart of political futures used by the writer of TFA. Q. Who tends to be closer to the top? (A. $$) I'm sure it's not quite that simple, though - the cause/effect could be reversed.