What an awesome idea! Why don't we just figure out things for ourselves. Just pop a pill, and if we feel better the next day, it's good to go.
But wait - in the dead of winter, sometimes I wake up feeling better without taking any pills. I mean, some days I feel better, some days I feel worse. What if that were the case when I took the pill? So maybe, instead of taking it just once, I should take it many times, and see if it worked every single time. We can call these repeats "repetitions". In fact, maybe just take a bunch of different people and run all the repetitions on them at the same time. Just in case there was some low pressure system that got everyone sick, or everybody's depressed because the third season of A Game of Thrones just ended.
But wait a second - I mean, you can't really expect your pill to work every time, right? See, if you took it on a day you were feeling good, it could be that the next day you feel bad, but things would have been worse without the pill. So let's look for a pill that makes things better, but on average, not every single time. Hell, we can even test for this using some branch of mathematics called "statistics".
And then there's another thing - I mean, how do you know there's an improvement unless you can compare it to another group that didn't pop the pills? So, let's control the pill taking and have another group set aside that doesn't take the pill; we'll call them the "control" group.
Here there's another problem. This control group, they're not actually "the same" as the other group, because they don't really take any pills. Maybe the group that took the pills felt so good about taking the pills that they just magically convinced themselves to feel better, and actually felt better. They just please themselves. So we'll give the "control" group a pill that doesn't have any vitamin D in it, and call it "placebo" (it's from Latin, "I will please"), in case they are just pleasing themselves into feeling better.
You know what - I think we're onto something here. I think we just invented "science"!
This, right here. The motivation behind every malfunctioning piece of carp employed by the armies of all creed and color, including the various "SOPs" and similar procedure nonsense that thought-challenged jarheads think might save them from investing the activity of a few neurons and yet still keep them alive. I remember once my unit entertained a bunch of US marines for a joint drill. We made them a little IED scenario with a bunch of charges and mines and stuff (all rigged with pops, no real boom-boom). They tripped every single wire and trodded on all the mines too, but they were really happy to have followed proper procedure.
Guns, especially guns of this sort, are easier to conceal, work at a distance and are lighter than the 5-10kg of C4 you would need to haul in past the guards in order to harm the speaker from where they were comfortably sitting. And the bomb scenario carries with it the price of not being able to view your accomplishment because the brain you use in order to perform said observation will be spattered across the ceiling.
This is "squirt AAV" or Adeno-Associated Virus, or better - rAAV for recombinant. The virus does what viruses do and delivers the genes encoding your gene of interest, in this case a gene encoding a broad antibody that is effective against many different flu virus strains.
This is a big difference, especially if you're trying to sell it out to Average Joe and his mother in law. "Here, let me just squirt this genetically engineered virus into your nose for a second...".
One more thing I don't get - why are they reporting a 2011 paper today?
Nice tirade. Can you explain to us in what sense is cracking a crypto problem more ridiculous than figuring out where there are more shiny bits of rock that people like to wear in their jewelry?
Both require dedicated equipment, know-how, time and effort; Both produce something that other people find valuable and want to own, but are ultimately useless on their own (oh, alright, cue the wedding ring jokes...); Both are subject to market laws of supply and demand that determine their price.
After you're done with that, we'll deal with the rest of the ridiculous stuff you seem to have in the same bag as Bitcoins (HFT? seriously?).
This is incompatible with an infrastructure that is so hostile towards public transportation (outside of some lucky big cities). I live in some backwater suburb in FL and I can't get to a pub to have a couple of drink with a buddy without incurring an extra 20$ in cab fare? In Europe this was easy, you just hop on the bus/U-Bahn/tram and viola. Also in the suburbs.
Trying to replicate the results at the same time as another group that is unfinished with their research is potentially wasteful.
This is called "competition", and is widely accepted as a form of incentive that actually makes things, in the long term, much more efficient. If you remain unconvinced, I will gladly tour the history of the demise of the Soviet bloc for you.
Science is nothing without replication. If you are building an experimental approach based on some result, you have to replicate it before building on this result any further, otherwise your method might be flawed.
To make this clear - let's say some lab produced a result that chemical A is a carcinogen. And I want to test whether this depends on other factors, e.g. genetic background, immune system response, whatever. I will first replicate the result before going on, otherwise I don't have a method. It's that simple.
People in these positions have to be scientist, or at least have had a scientific training, this is a good example of why.
Most of the fear, FUD and panic will go away if the card requires some form of semi-prolonged contact with the reading device in order to activate or unmask the magnetic data. Then unsolicited reading will be more or less the same as swiping, but without the dedicated hardware.
I think you people don't understand religion very well.
You, as scientists (I assume, or scientific-oriented or something), will never be able to tell the difference between life that evolved spontaneously starting 9.7 billion years ago and a life that was created 5773 years ago by a deity that made every detail perfectly explainable by spontaneous evolution starting 9.7 billion years ago. Because you presuppose a perfect god, if (a) god exists in the way that western civilization portrays, then you won't be able to make a scientific argument to prove (or disprove) his existence. Not applicable. Out of the scope of the function. Like trying to use calculus to prove that a tomato tastes good.
A religious person who believes in the 5773 story will never accept any scientific evidence that proves him wrong. If he does, he is not a true believer
You'll bankrupt the entire biomed research arm of the universities, which is already moribund anyway. Professors would actually have to do experiments, you know. Get their hands dirty instead of hiring el-cheapo $39,000 post-docs to do the work they should be doing.
That would be a catastrophe.
I can't imagine how thankful the publishers, as well as Fiona Staples and probably other comics artists that incorporate gay sex in their publications, are to Apple. I've never heard of them or their comics before, but now I have, thanks to Apple.
But this really is just the oldest PR stunt in the book. Find some high profile entity and trigger an overly conservative/liberal response from them, get your attention on nationwide media and... ka-ching! ka-ching! ka-ching!
Hey, wha.. wasn't that Barbara Streisand just there?
And honestly, I would never ever want to be president.
This, in a nutshell, is the curse of modern politics. Almost nobody wants to be up front, and the people who do suffer from all kinds of psychological lacunae and personality disorders that make them unfit to lead anything more crucial than the neighborhood boy scout troupe. Most people who see how the media treat politicians just run away, leaving the unfit to rule, which strengthens the media response, in a vicious circle that brings us all down.
Slashdot Mirror
What an awesome idea! Why don't we just figure out things for ourselves. Just pop a pill, and if we feel better the next day, it's good to go.
But wait - in the dead of winter, sometimes I wake up feeling better without taking any pills. I mean, some days I feel better, some days I feel worse. What if that were the case when I took the pill? So maybe, instead of taking it just once, I should take it many times, and see if it worked every single time. We can call these repeats "repetitions". In fact, maybe just take a bunch of different people and run all the repetitions on them at the same time. Just in case there was some low pressure system that got everyone sick, or everybody's depressed because the third season of A Game of Thrones just ended.
But wait a second - I mean, you can't really expect your pill to work every time, right? See, if you took it on a day you were feeling good, it could be that the next day you feel bad, but things would have been worse without the pill. So let's look for a pill that makes things better, but on average, not every single time. Hell, we can even test for this using some branch of mathematics called "statistics".
And then there's another thing - I mean, how do you know there's an improvement unless you can compare it to another group that didn't pop the pills? So, let's control the pill taking and have another group set aside that doesn't take the pill; we'll call them the "control" group.
Here there's another problem. This control group, they're not actually "the same" as the other group, because they don't really take any pills. Maybe the group that took the pills felt so good about taking the pills that they just magically convinced themselves to feel better, and actually felt better. They just please themselves. So we'll give the "control" group a pill that doesn't have any vitamin D in it, and call it "placebo" (it's from Latin, "I will please"), in case they are just pleasing themselves into feeling better.
You know what - I think we're onto something here. I think we just invented "science"!
This, right here. The motivation behind every malfunctioning piece of carp employed by the armies of all creed and color, including the various "SOPs" and similar procedure nonsense that thought-challenged jarheads think might save them from investing the activity of a few neurons and yet still keep them alive. I remember once my unit entertained a bunch of US marines for a joint drill. We made them a little IED scenario with a bunch of charges and mines and stuff (all rigged with pops, no real boom-boom). They tripped every single wire and trodded on all the mines too, but they were really happy to have followed proper procedure.
Find it here on Haaretz's English website.
Guns, especially guns of this sort, are easier to conceal, work at a distance and are lighter than the 5-10kg of C4 you would need to haul in past the guards in order to harm the speaker from where they were comfortably sitting. And the bomb scenario carries with it the price of not being able to view your accomplishment because the brain you use in order to perform said observation will be spattered across the ceiling.
(I don't see them being a real threat, the technology is easy to copy before they get too big)
There are such things as software patents, you know.
rAAVs don't integrate.
TFA is on Science today.
This is "squirt AAV" or Adeno-Associated Virus, or better - rAAV for recombinant. The virus does what viruses do and delivers the genes encoding your gene of interest, in this case a gene encoding a broad antibody that is effective against many different flu virus strains.
This is a big difference, especially if you're trying to sell it out to Average Joe and his mother in law. "Here, let me just squirt this genetically engineered virus into your nose for a second...".
One more thing I don't get - why are they reporting a 2011 paper today?
The irony is that the OP's name is definitely Arabic, as are about 10% of undergrads in Israeli universities.
Nice tirade. Can you explain to us in what sense is cracking a crypto problem more ridiculous than figuring out where there are more shiny bits of rock that people like to wear in their jewelry? Both require dedicated equipment, know-how, time and effort; Both produce something that other people find valuable and want to own, but are ultimately useless on their own (oh, alright, cue the wedding ring jokes...); Both are subject to market laws of supply and demand that determine their price. After you're done with that, we'll deal with the rest of the ridiculous stuff you seem to have in the same bag as Bitcoins (HFT? seriously?).
And for those of you who think this is partisan-minded, the "other" guys (hah! what a joke) would have done exactly the same.
This is incompatible with an infrastructure that is so hostile towards public transportation (outside of some lucky big cities). I live in some backwater suburb in FL and I can't get to a pub to have a couple of drink with a buddy without incurring an extra 20$ in cab fare? In Europe this was easy, you just hop on the bus/U-Bahn/tram and viola. Also in the suburbs.
Trying to replicate the results at the same time as another group that is unfinished with their research is potentially wasteful.
This is called "competition", and is widely accepted as a form of incentive that actually makes things, in the long term, much more efficient. If you remain unconvinced, I will gladly tour the history of the demise of the Soviet bloc for you.
Science is nothing without replication. If you are building an experimental approach based on some result, you have to replicate it before building on this result any further, otherwise your method might be flawed.
To make this clear - let's say some lab produced a result that chemical A is a carcinogen. And I want to test whether this depends on other factors, e.g. genetic background, immune system response, whatever. I will first replicate the result before going on, otherwise I don't have a method. It's that simple.
People in these positions have to be scientist, or at least have had a scientific training, this is a good example of why.
You also miss the special offers that you see round the store
Do you use the internet at all? Special offers???
That's why your best bet is to use a close relative of the Pot plant, which will be impossible to outlaw. Ganja, meet Hops.
the catholic church
There, found it for you.
Most of the fear, FUD and panic will go away if the card requires some form of semi-prolonged contact with the reading device in order to activate or unmask the magnetic data. Then unsolicited reading will be more or less the same as swiping, but without the dedicated hardware.
...autism that LEDs cause?
You forgot to mention the idiotism that it provokes.
Oh, get on with it. Can't you play connect the grammar dots? I pick my nose at you.
I think you people don't understand religion very well.
You, as scientists (I assume, or scientific-oriented or something), will never be able to tell the difference between life that evolved spontaneously starting 9.7 billion years ago and a life that was created 5773 years ago by a deity that made every detail perfectly explainable by spontaneous evolution starting 9.7 billion years ago. Because you presuppose a perfect god, if (a) god exists in the way that western civilization portrays, then you won't be able to make a scientific argument to prove (or disprove) his existence. Not applicable. Out of the scope of the function. Like trying to use calculus to prove that a tomato tastes good.
A religious person who believes in the 5773 story will never accept any scientific evidence that proves him wrong. If he does, he is not a true believer
Now, stop fighting and go back to your rooms.
You'll bankrupt the entire biomed research arm of the universities, which is already moribund anyway. Professors would actually have to do experiments, you know. Get their hands dirty instead of hiring el-cheapo $39,000 post-docs to do the work they should be doing. That would be a catastrophe.
I can't imagine how thankful the publishers, as well as Fiona Staples and probably other comics artists that incorporate gay sex in their publications, are to Apple. I've never heard of them or their comics before, but now I have, thanks to Apple. But this really is just the oldest PR stunt in the book. Find some high profile entity and trigger an overly conservative/liberal response from them, get your attention on nationwide media and... ka-ching! ka-ching! ka-ching! Hey, wha.. wasn't that Barbara Streisand just there?
For me, these are still early days to comment on the acquisition, but at least one thing you have mentioned has a (complicated and convoluted, but functional) workaround. http://danielcoakley.com/2013/01/setting-up-mendeley-to-sync-to-android-device/ (I am not affiliated with this site).
And honestly, I would never ever want to be president.
This, in a nutshell, is the curse of modern politics. Almost nobody wants to be up front, and the people who do suffer from all kinds of psychological lacunae and personality disorders that make them unfit to lead anything more crucial than the neighborhood boy scout troupe. Most people who see how the media treat politicians just run away, leaving the unfit to rule, which strengthens the media response, in a vicious circle that brings us all down.