I realize I'm expecting a lot, but couldn't a Slashdot summary be accurate, just once.
First, its Bruce IVINS. Not IVANS. The Russians had nothing to do with this.
Second, the linked article doesn't provide any new information at all regarding IVINS' alleged motivations. It just repeats what's been reported already. And those don't make a lot of sense (the claims that he was psychologically unstable make much more sense, if those are reliable).
Third, yes anthrax fingeprinting was crucial to this case. Yes they brute forced the DNA sequencing (duh!) but the main evidence against Ivins is a statistical fingerprint based on four specific mutations in the anthrax that the FBI claims was present in the anthrax mailed to Congress critters, etc. and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins controlled. But as the linked article points out, without knowing more you can't really conclude much from that. For example, the similarities could occur in portions of the anthrax DNA that are hypervariable which would significantly reduce their value.
So, so far it looks like the FBI case is based largely on two facts: a) Ivins began working late nights in the weeks prior to the anthrax mailings -- he apparently claimed he had trouble at home and found solace in his work which the FBI apparently found absurd; b) a statistical similarity in certain unspecified mutations among the anthrax mailed out and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins had access to.
The Science article also suggests that the FBI assumed that because the envelopes used to mail the anthrax were purchased in Maryland or Virginia that the anthrax *had* to be produced there, so they then used as a basis for their investigation that the anthrax *had* to come from USAMRIID . . . which is why they focused on Hatfill so intensely.
Maybe Ivins was the killer, but the Science article seems to raise more questions about how solid the FBI's case really is. Maybe future, more detailed information releases will bring this more into focus, but so far this doesn't appear to be the slam dunk that the FBI has so far made it seem.
And a drive compatiblity test. From my experience, compatibility with dual layer DVDs is much lower than with single layer DVDs when burning them yourself.
"But there are 2 ways to do it: Summing up the content and providing a link, or ripping a few lines out of context and then mentioning in the fine print where they're from....
So while I'm all for gathering info and making it available to your readers, I'm also very much against the "Readers Digest" approach: Snipping out what I deem valuable, copying it to my page and giving half-hearted credit to the real author. Linking is cool. Copy-paste-blogging is just lame."
Yes, some bloggers do the equivalent of e-mail threads where they copy an entire piece, blockquote it and then add one or two sentences additionally. That's stupid.
But there are reasons to quote extensively from materials provided you're offering extensive commentary in return (and giving the proper credit up front to the author you're quoting from).
1. Summing up the content is not always that easy to do. I've seen plenty of mainstream media reports where the two paragraph summary completely misrepresents what was actually said. Where possible, I try to quote as extensively as possible precisely to avoid the appearance of mischaracterizing someone's argument.
2. Linking is great but my experience in about 10 years of writing for my own web site is that about 80% of the things you link to will be 404 within two years. Not to mention sites like the BBC's where if you go back to a story a couple years later it will likely have been completely rewritten without any sort of notice that changes were made post-publication to the text.
People in the developing world *would not* need to use formula to receive this:
"Earlier this month, a Peruvian scientist sponsored by Ventria presented data at the Pediatric Academics Societies meeting in San Francisco. It showed children hospitalized in Peru with serious diarrhea attacks recovered quicker -- 3.67 days versus 5.21 days -- if *the dehydration solution* they were fed contained the powder."
Now, maybe you consider feeding kids in hospitals dehydration solutions a Bad Thing(TM) too, but trying to equate this company with Nestle seems a bit stupid (i.e., par for the course for Slashdot).
"What? Are you kidding me?!? This guy isn't interested for a second in promoting a dialogue an anything except getting his name out in the press. He's using the ever-popular (and seriously flawed) assumption that there is no such thing as bad publicity."
Another Slashdot resident idiot. The game creator's name isn't public -- he's doing all this pseudonymously.
Yes. You cannot compare infant mortality rates directly because the United States measures infant mortality differently than most countries. Specifically, the United States counts premature infants with very low birth weights who have virtually no chance of survival (typically less than 24 hours) as a live birth and then death. In much of the rest of the world, such infants are not counted as live births and so don't factor in to infant mortality statistics.
If the United States did not count infants born with almost no chance of survival as live births, then its infant mortality rate would be significantly lower (though the different metric doesn't account for all of the difference).
"fantastic contrast between its black and silver colours give the Everglide s-500 a futuristic look that makes it the first one of a genre"
Damn! They were actually able to achieve a contrast between black and silver colours? That's pretty much what I look for in headphones -- high contrast -- and clearly this set is really on the cutting edge.
Odd that the person who submitted this is surprised that the inventions are from the Islamic world. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the regions whose inventions are included here knows there were a lot of innovations created in the first 500-600 years after the founding of Islam.
The problem is that such inventiveness and scholarly pursuits largely stopped/stagnated as Muslim countries and culture turned inward.
Seriously, you're an idiot. That may be a problem for other members of congress, but Lantos was one of 141 House members who voted for a measure that would have overturned MFN status for China.
He was wrong then and wrong now, but at least he is consistent.
Yes but large corporations don't have the sort of long-running mismanagement of IT that the IRS has. The story here isn't that Gates' fortune is so large but rather -- assuming the story isn't a hoax -- that the IRS is so mismanaged that it cannot deal with exceptional cases like Gates.
The IRS is apparently still using a computer system that became operational in 1967 (see this announcement for example).
Of course what is not shocking is that some troll would come along to slashdot and post such nonsense, conveniently without citation -- some TV station somewhere said something. Yawn.
It is telling (and typical of this debate) that you a) describe how wonderful it is to hear your own views affirmed constantly, and simultaneously b) decry the folks who complain that their own views are rarely reflected.
Hard-edged exposure to different ideas for me, just not for thee apparently.
This thing has been discussed pretty thoroughly elsewhere since announcement, and the overwhelming consensus is that since it won't display txt and html (or pdf, while we're on the topic) it's crap. sadly, i agree. I haven't paid full price for a book in years, and i'm not starting just because sony says so.
Typical Slashdot idiot. Read the specs -- it supports un-DRMed PDFs natively and will have some sort of system to convert HTML to Sony's proprietary format.
Do Slashdot editors even bother to RTFA? Apparently not.
Stupid Slashdot summary makes no sense,
"Basically, they had been licensing the statistics for nine cents (US) per gross from the Major League Baseball Players Association."
Until you read the article and learn,
"Before the shift, CBC had been paying the players' association 9 percent of gross."
Is it too much to ask Slashdot editors to get their heads out of their asses long enough to make sure the summary bears minimal resemblance to the story being linked to?
Slashdot Mirror
That was a hoax. Simpsons production team put out a press release the shortly afterward saying Groening was being satirical in his comments.
Does anybody at Slashdot ever actually check *anything* before they post?
"The deal fizzled out when federal antitrust regulators said it would challenge any deal made between the two companies.""
The link is about the deal between *GOOGLE* and Yahoo!. Google != Microsoft.
The deal between Yahoo! and Microsoft fizzled out because Yang did everything he could to prevent it, not because of antitrust concerns.
I realize I'm expecting a lot, but couldn't a Slashdot summary be accurate, just once.
First, its Bruce IVINS. Not IVANS. The Russians had nothing to do with this.
Second, the linked article doesn't provide any new information at all regarding IVINS' alleged motivations. It just repeats what's been reported already. And those don't make a lot of sense (the claims that he was psychologically unstable make much more sense, if those are reliable).
Third, yes anthrax fingeprinting was crucial to this case. Yes they brute forced the DNA sequencing (duh!) but the main evidence against Ivins is a statistical fingerprint based on four specific mutations in the anthrax that the FBI claims was present in the anthrax mailed to Congress critters, etc. and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins controlled. But as the linked article points out, without knowing more you can't really conclude much from that. For example, the similarities could occur in portions of the anthrax DNA that are hypervariable which would significantly reduce their value.
So, so far it looks like the FBI case is based largely on two facts: a) Ivins began working late nights in the weeks prior to the anthrax mailings -- he apparently claimed he had trouble at home and found solace in his work which the FBI apparently found absurd; b) a statistical similarity in certain unspecified mutations among the anthrax mailed out and the anthrax in a vial that only Ivins had access to.
The Science article also suggests that the FBI assumed that because the envelopes used to mail the anthrax were purchased in Maryland or Virginia that the anthrax *had* to be produced there, so they then used as a basis for their investigation that the anthrax *had* to come from USAMRIID . . . which is why they focused on Hatfill so intensely.
Maybe Ivins was the killer, but the Science article seems to raise more questions about how solid the FBI's case really is. Maybe future, more detailed information releases will bring this more into focus, but so far this doesn't appear to be the slam dunk that the FBI has so far made it seem.
And a drive compatiblity test. From my experience, compatibility with dual layer DVDs is much lower than with single layer DVDs when burning them yourself.
"It just so happened three years ago, that Fox News attempted to sue the makers of the Simpsons..."
It just so happens that was a clever hoax started by Matt Groening who was pulling a reporter's leg.
"But there are 2 ways to do it: Summing up the content and providing a link, or ripping a few lines out of context and then mentioning in the fine print where they're from. ...
So while I'm all for gathering info and making it available to your readers, I'm also very much against the "Readers Digest" approach: Snipping out what I deem valuable, copying it to my page and giving half-hearted credit to the real author. Linking is cool. Copy-paste-blogging is just lame."
Yes, some bloggers do the equivalent of e-mail threads where they copy an entire piece, blockquote it and then add one or two sentences additionally. That's stupid.
But there are reasons to quote extensively from materials provided you're offering extensive commentary in return (and giving the proper credit up front to the author you're quoting from).
1. Summing up the content is not always that easy to do. I've seen plenty of mainstream media reports where the two paragraph summary completely misrepresents what was actually said. Where possible, I try to quote as extensively as possible precisely to avoid the appearance of mischaracterizing someone's argument.
2. Linking is great but my experience in about 10 years of writing for my own web site is that about 80% of the things you link to will be 404 within two years. Not to mention sites like the BBC's where if you go back to a story a couple years later it will likely have been completely rewritten without any sort of notice that changes were made post-publication to the text.
People in the developing world *would not* need to use formula to receive this:
"Earlier this month, a Peruvian scientist sponsored by Ventria presented data at the Pediatric Academics Societies meeting in San Francisco. It showed children hospitalized in Peru with serious diarrhea attacks recovered quicker -- 3.67 days versus 5.21 days -- if *the dehydration solution* they were fed contained the powder."
Now, maybe you consider feeding kids in hospitals dehydration solutions a Bad Thing(TM) too, but trying to equate this company with Nestle seems a bit stupid (i.e., par for the course for Slashdot).
"What? Are you kidding me?!? This guy isn't interested for a second in promoting a dialogue an anything except getting his name out in the press. He's using the ever-popular (and seriously flawed) assumption that there is no such thing as bad publicity."
Another Slashdot resident idiot. The game creator's name isn't public -- he's doing all this pseudonymously.
Next time, RTFA.
What a dumbass. Only on Slashdot would someone seriously recommend sending people a book which the poster hasn't bothered to read.
Yes. You cannot compare infant mortality rates directly because the United States measures infant mortality differently than most countries. Specifically, the United States counts premature infants with very low birth weights who have virtually no chance of survival (typically less than 24 hours) as a live birth and then death. In much of the rest of the world, such infants are not counted as live births and so don't factor in to infant mortality statistics.
If the United States did not count infants born with almost no chance of survival as live births, then its infant mortality rate would be significantly lower (though the different metric doesn't account for all of the difference).
Of course, TFA doesn't actually say what the summary claims. Another example of Slashdot outright lying. Must be a weekday.
Yes, but does the Jawbone achieve high contrast between its black and silver colours?
"fantastic contrast between its black and silver colours give the Everglide s-500 a futuristic look that makes it the first one of a genre"
Damn! They were actually able to achieve a contrast between black and silver colours? That's pretty much what I look for in headphones -- high contrast -- and clearly this set is really on the cutting edge.
Hey, that's a nice ad. How much would it cost to have Cmdr Taco post my ad on Slashdot?
Odd that the person who submitted this is surprised that the inventions are from the Islamic world. Anyone who knows anything about the history of the regions whose inventions are included here knows there were a lot of innovations created in the first 500-600 years after the founding of Islam.
The problem is that such inventiveness and scholarly pursuits largely stopped/stagnated as Muslim countries and culture turned inward.
Seriously, you're an idiot. That may be a problem for other members of congress, but Lantos was one of 141 House members who voted for a measure that would have overturned MFN status for China.
He was wrong then and wrong now, but at least he is consistent.
Seriously...this guy is the Christina Aguilerra of computer journalism.
Yes but large corporations don't have the sort of long-running mismanagement of IT that the IRS has. The story here isn't that Gates' fortune is so large but rather -- assuming the story isn't a hoax -- that the IRS is so mismanaged that it cannot deal with exceptional cases like Gates.
The IRS is apparently still using a computer system that became operational in 1967 (see this announcement for example).
Of course what is not shocking is that some troll would come along to slashdot and post such nonsense, conveniently without citation -- some TV station somewhere said something. Yawn.
It is telling (and typical of this debate) that you a) describe how wonderful it is to hear your own views affirmed constantly, and simultaneously b) decry the folks who complain that their own views are rarely reflected.
Hard-edged exposure to different ideas for me, just not for thee apparently.
This thing has been discussed pretty thoroughly elsewhere since announcement, and the overwhelming consensus is that since it won't display txt and html (or pdf, while we're on the topic) it's crap. sadly, i agree. I haven't paid full price for a book in years, and i'm not starting just because sony says so.
Typical Slashdot idiot. Read the specs -- it supports un-DRMed PDFs natively and will have some sort of system to convert HTML to Sony's proprietary format.
Um, then the Sony reader is *not* for you, unless you want to do a lot of side scrolling. Or your PDFs are already formatted for this screen size.
He *should* let it get to him. The quality on Slashdot is crap -- half the time the summaries bear no resemblance to the article being linked to.
Do Slashdot editors ever RTFA?
Do Slashdot editors even bother to RTFA? Apparently not.
Stupid Slashdot summary makes no sense,
"Basically, they had been licensing the statistics for nine cents (US) per gross from the Major League Baseball Players Association."
Until you read the article and learn,
"Before the shift, CBC had been paying the players' association 9 percent of gross."
Is it too much to ask Slashdot editors to get their heads out of their asses long enough to make sure the summary bears minimal resemblance to the story being linked to?
I recently copied CD-Rs that were seven years old. Just store them properly.