I'm a type 1 and this was the first thing that came to my mind too, i.e., glucose control.
Another thing that occurred to me: I wonder if utilizing the glucose can give an indication of glucose level in the blood? It might be an implantable, reliable, continuous glucose monitoring system as well as a system to burn off excess glucose. This sounds a lot simpler and more reliable than the "artificial pancreas" systems that are currently being developed.
"The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."
Perhaps, but before we laugh at such things I would like to point out that the U.S. government recognizes Native American heritage on less convincing evidence than a DNA sequence. It makes a difference in government benefits and tribal rights. My point is that governments regularly, and officially, pigeon-hole people into various groups based on "racial purity" or something like it. It sure seems important to a lot of people, especially when money is involved.
1. Why is a programming language successful? - Because programmers use it, or don't. 2. Why do programmers use it? - Because it does what they want. 3. What do programmers want from a language? - For it to do what is required, quickly and easily. 4. Why do programmers want to do things quickly and easily? - Because programmers are lazy. 5. Why are programmers lazy? - Because they want to get their work out of the way as quickly as possible so they can get back to doing things they really enjoy.
There are your five why's, answered succinctly and glibly.
Well, fine, I guess. The article says it took them 20 hours to fly 515 miles. That's about 25mph. So, with necessary rest, etc, around the world in 80 days, basically?
I think this is why he was such a great writer. He had a real sense of the human element of technology -- how we use it; how we interact with it; how it affects us, both individually and as a species.
I think you're being over dramatic. First, the project is publicly-funded, just indirectly. IIRC, the purpose of this exercise is to prove the viability of SpaceX to run these kinds of errands. If it is successful, they will get a big contract from NASA. Second, you might as well bemoan the loss of publicly-funded road building while you're at it. Most government entities hire contractors to do the grunt work for projects, like building bridges or laying pavement. These are just grunt jobs and it does not make economic sense for the government to purchase and constantly maintain a fleet of vehicles and equipment, as well as a large workforce, which will only be utilized now and then. Governments have been doing this sort of thing ever since civilization began to specialize. Just because it's "space" (really, just low-earth orbit, yawn) doesn't make any difference.
Perhaps, but the thing that has bothered me about that is that you now have to pay for your bandwidth usage. Who wants their bandwidth sucked up with ads?
I am reminded of what happened 20 years ago with IBM's online service, Prodigy. I remember giving it a try, but you had to pay for it by the amount of time you spent on it. It was monetized by offering ads, but at 2400 baud, watching ads slowly download, sucking up your online time, was painful. The last straw for me was when I had to wait about five minutes for an animated Volkswagen ad to download -- on my dime. I canceled the service immediately. Mobile FB users will feel the same frustration if they have to pay for the privilege of sitting through ads.
One of the reasons I left Facebook is because I tried FB mobile and it was a complete waste of time. Not to mention the fact that it increases your bandwidth usage, which you have to pay for, without any corresponding benefit. The entire online experience is going mobile now, and they haven't figured out how to monetize it. What I don't get is why FB is valued so high (74 times its earnings, IIRC). Perhaps they know they have a problem and are basically cashing in and getting out, while the gettin' is good.
FTA...without that conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades as the younger generation would not vote in a conventional physical polling booth, which could lead to “very serious conflict between the generations.”
That is probably perfectly okay with older generations, who would rather younger generations not vote. I suppose I could be lumped in with the "older generation", but I differ with many of my peers in that I appreciate the ideas and concerns of people around my daughter's age.
Personally, I haven't voted in 12 years. There are two primary reasons for this: 1)There never seems to be anyone to vote FOR. I always feel like I'm selecting the lesser of two evils. 2) The vote-counting process is corrupt, even in non-electronic venues. It's not that way everywhere, but enough so that voting seems like a waste of time.
People tell me that it is my civic duty to vote. These are often the same people who run red lights and cheat on their taxes. It is no wonder that young people are apathetic about voting.
"That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
Right there is the problem. Geeks are often, by nature, chock full of hubris. Assuming that you have all the evidence, and that all your evidence is correct, and that you have interpreted the correct conclusion from your evidence, and therefore anyone who questions your evidence should just "shut the hell up", is not conducive to compromise or cooperation. It is precisely THAT attitude that got the U.S. into Iraq, to cite a recent example ("We KNOW there are WMD's, and we KNOW Saddam is going to use them, so we're going to invade Iraq and the rest of you can just shut the hell up.").
This is a constant problem at my office, where the.Net developers are so bloated with hubris that they think their applications are perfect, and always want to blame the DB2 database first when something goes wrong. And they continue to do this, even though evidence indicates that 99% of the time they have a bug in their application.
"Evidence" is not always objective, or correct, and geeks are just as prone to ignore facts as anyone else.
I'm not a fan of Facebook -- deleted my account last year -- and I am inclined to believe that they are overvalued. However, I don't think NPR's experiment is valid. Let's say there's this place I know called Bob's Bar where they also serve pizza. A number of my friends know about Bob's Bar too. Let's say Bob's Bar has a Facebook presence, and buys some advertising targeting myself and some of my friends. Then, while on FB, me and some of my friends (some of whom have never been to Bob's Bar) decide we're going to meet at Bob's Bar for drinks and pizza on Friday night. If someone interviewed us at Bob's Bar, neither me nor any of my friends would say we had heard about Bob's Bar via FB. But that doesn't mean the advertising didn't pay off. We could have met up anywhere for pizza and drinks, but because Bob's was on our collective FB radar, we went to Bob's.
I said "as far as harming public perception". I did not say they are equivalent acts, but the end result is the same. Especially if you try to cover it up by saying that fudging results in order to get more grant money, or to forward a personal agenda, is "a known byproduct of science." If science had a clergy you could be a bishop.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a type 1 and this was the first thing that came to my mind too, i.e., glucose control.
Another thing that occurred to me: I wonder if utilizing the glucose can give an indication of glucose level in the blood? It might be an implantable, reliable, continuous glucose monitoring system as well as a system to burn off excess glucose. This sounds a lot simpler and more reliable than the "artificial pancreas" systems that are currently being developed.
As a diabetic, I could run a whole cluster of a neurocomputers.
"The test is of-course nonsense, and notions of 'racial purity' have long been discredited."
Perhaps, but before we laugh at such things I would like to point out that the U.S. government recognizes Native American heritage on less convincing evidence than a DNA sequence. It makes a difference in government benefits and tribal rights. My point is that governments regularly, and officially, pigeon-hole people into various groups based on "racial purity" or something like it. It sure seems important to a lot of people, especially when money is involved.
Seriously? Here is another wedge-shaped laptop that has been around since at least 1800.
1. Why is a programming language successful? - Because programmers use it, or don't.
2. Why do programmers use it? - Because it does what they want.
3. What do programmers want from a language? - For it to do what is required, quickly and easily.
4. Why do programmers want to do things quickly and easily? - Because programmers are lazy.
5. Why are programmers lazy? - Because they want to get their work out of the way as quickly as possible so they can get back to doing things they really enjoy.
There are your five why's, answered succinctly and glibly.
I'm not sure "still in the womb" applies. They're talking about predicting the genetic makeup before the child is even conceived.
Well, fine, I guess. The article says it took them 20 hours to fly 515 miles. That's about 25mph. So, with necessary rest, etc, around the world in 80 days, basically?
I think this is why he was such a great writer. He had a real sense of the human element of technology -- how we use it; how we interact with it; how it affects us, both individually and as a species.
Or "a fire to be Nookd" if the book of quotes is from Barnes & Noble.
I've got news for them: this works in offline social networks too. It just works faster online.
I think you're being over dramatic. First, the project is publicly-funded, just indirectly. IIRC, the purpose of this exercise is to prove the viability of SpaceX to run these kinds of errands. If it is successful, they will get a big contract from NASA. Second, you might as well bemoan the loss of publicly-funded road building while you're at it. Most government entities hire contractors to do the grunt work for projects, like building bridges or laying pavement. These are just grunt jobs and it does not make economic sense for the government to purchase and constantly maintain a fleet of vehicles and equipment, as well as a large workforce, which will only be utilized now and then. Governments have been doing this sort of thing ever since civilization began to specialize. Just because it's "space" (really, just low-earth orbit, yawn) doesn't make any difference.
You mean they stole it from somewhere?
Perhaps, but the thing that has bothered me about that is that you now have to pay for your bandwidth usage. Who wants their bandwidth sucked up with ads?
I am reminded of what happened 20 years ago with IBM's online service, Prodigy. I remember giving it a try, but you had to pay for it by the amount of time you spent on it. It was monetized by offering ads, but at 2400 baud, watching ads slowly download, sucking up your online time, was painful. The last straw for me was when I had to wait about five minutes for an animated Volkswagen ad to download -- on my dime. I canceled the service immediately. Mobile FB users will feel the same frustration if they have to pay for the privilege of sitting through ads.
One of the reasons I left Facebook is because I tried FB mobile and it was a complete waste of time. Not to mention the fact that it increases your bandwidth usage, which you have to pay for, without any corresponding benefit. The entire online experience is going mobile now, and they haven't figured out how to monetize it. What I don't get is why FB is valued so high (74 times its earnings, IIRC). Perhaps they know they have a problem and are basically cashing in and getting out, while the gettin' is good.
...he may just need new batteries.
No doubt. Social isn't always cool. STDs come to mind.
I have two questions:
1. Why would I want to share my search results with everyone?
and more importantly,
2. Why would I want everyone to share their search results with me?
FTA ...without that conventional modes of democracy could be extinct within two decades as the younger generation would not vote in a conventional physical polling booth, which could lead to “very serious conflict between the generations.”
That is probably perfectly okay with older generations, who would rather younger generations not vote. I suppose I could be lumped in with the "older generation", but I differ with many of my peers in that I appreciate the ideas and concerns of people around my daughter's age.
Personally, I haven't voted in 12 years. There are two primary reasons for this: 1)There never seems to be anyone to vote FOR. I always feel like I'm selecting the lesser of two evils. 2) The vote-counting process is corrupt, even in non-electronic venues. It's not that way everywhere, but enough so that voting seems like a waste of time.
People tell me that it is my civic duty to vote. These are often the same people who run red lights and cheat on their taxes. It is no wonder that young people are apathetic about voting.
Please re-read your sentence, except this time try substituting "niggers" or "gays" or "jews" for "religious types".
I'd hate to see the laws we'd be stuck with if you were in charge.
"That's not at moral call, it's a factual statement; as such it should be evidence-based, or else the person making it should shut the hell up."
Right there is the problem. Geeks are often, by nature, chock full of hubris. Assuming that you have all the evidence, and that all your evidence is correct, and that you have interpreted the correct conclusion from your evidence, and therefore anyone who questions your evidence should just "shut the hell up", is not conducive to compromise or cooperation. It is precisely THAT attitude that got the U.S. into Iraq, to cite a recent example ("We KNOW there are WMD's, and we KNOW Saddam is going to use them, so we're going to invade Iraq and the rest of you can just shut the hell up.").
This is a constant problem at my office, where the .Net developers are so bloated with hubris that they think their applications are perfect, and always want to blame the DB2 database first when something goes wrong. And they continue to do this, even though evidence indicates that 99% of the time they have a bug in their application.
"Evidence" is not always objective, or correct, and geeks are just as prone to ignore facts as anyone else.
I assume they mean people who actually drink real coffee, and not those that drink mocha-frappa-whatever liquid candy bars.
I'm not a fan of Facebook -- deleted my account last year -- and I am inclined to believe that they are overvalued. However, I don't think NPR's experiment is valid. Let's say there's this place I know called Bob's Bar where they also serve pizza. A number of my friends know about Bob's Bar too. Let's say Bob's Bar has a Facebook presence, and buys some advertising targeting myself and some of my friends. Then, while on FB, me and some of my friends (some of whom have never been to Bob's Bar) decide we're going to meet at Bob's Bar for drinks and pizza on Friday night. If someone interviewed us at Bob's Bar, neither me nor any of my friends would say we had heard about Bob's Bar via FB. But that doesn't mean the advertising didn't pay off. We could have met up anywhere for pizza and drinks, but because Bob's was on our collective FB radar, we went to Bob's.
...space debris orbiting the earth...
Wait, Pluto orbits the Earth now?
Meanwhile, I bet there are schools in West Virginia where the kids have to share textbooks, and teachers have to hold bake sales to buy supplies.
I said "as far as harming public perception". I did not say they are equivalent acts, but the end result is the same. Especially if you try to cover it up by saying that fudging results in order to get more grant money, or to forward a personal agenda, is "a known byproduct of science." If science had a clergy you could be a bishop.