In the Smith case, the sample containing another person's DNA showed alleles at seven out of a possible 15 loci, but at four of these loci, the alleles matched those of both the victim and the defendant. "The 1 in 95,000 figure in effect treated these alleles as full-weight evidence that the DNA came from the victim, ignoring the alternative possibility that the allele we saw could have been from the defendant," says Balding. If the opposite position is taken, and these alleles are ignored, you come up with a figure closer to 1 in 13. "It's a question of which loci you consider," he says.
Since when in the hell do you count common matches as proof that it comes from one person? Some of these labs are doing something very wrong, and I hate to think of both the false positives, and negatives, that came from their "expert" opinions.
While I didn't experience it on my last 2 installs, I had to disable ipv6 in Fedora to get networking to work properly. I've since had it enabled no problem, but from my the perspective of most end users like me, we probably won't even notice when things start using ipv6.
Here's a link to the original article, published yesterday. It's subscription based, which is why the OP didn't link to it. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo934.html
Maloof, A.C. et al. 2010. Possible animal-body fossils in pre-Marinoan limestones from South Australia. Nature Geoscience. Published online.
Abstract:
The Neoproterozoic era was punctuated by the Sturtian (about 710 million years ago) and Marinoan (about 635million years ago) intervals of glaciation. In South Australia, the rocks left behind by the glaciations are separated by a succession of limestones and shales, which were deposited at tropical latitudes. Here we describe millimetre- to centimetre-scale fossils from the Trezona Formation, which pre-dates the Marinoan glaciation. These weakly calcified fossils occur as anvil, wishbone, ring and perforated slab shapes and are contained within stromatolitic limestones. The Trezona Formation fossils pre-date the oldest known calcified fossils of this size by 90million years, and cannot be separated from the surrounding calcite matrix or imaged by traditional X-ray-based tomographic scanning methods. Instead, we have traced cross-sections of individual fossils by serially grinding and scanning each sample at a resolution of 50.8m. From these images we constructed three-dimensional digital models of the fossils. Our reconstructions show a population of ellipsoidal organisms without symmetry and with a network of interior canals that lead to circular apertures on the fossil surface. We suggest that several characteristics of these reef-dwelling fossils are best explained if the fossils are identified as sponge-grade metazoans.
It was peer reviewed, so I would suspect that their methods weren't trash.
It doesn't speculate that two similar life forms evolved twice. It only asks a question of how they survived glaciation. The molecular evidence pointed to an earlier evolutionary divergence for sponges, but no fossils were found until now.
The oldest known fossils of hard-bodied animals were two sea-dwelling organisms which lived around 550million years ago, called Namacalathus and Cloudina. But DNA evidence from sponges has suggested that their origins predate this. Marc Laflamme, of Yale University, said the earliest known sponge fossils were about 555million years old. He said: 'We had chemical and molecular evidence of fossils at this time but we weren't finding any real fossil specimens. 'What Adam's group was able to find was first evidence of true fossils of sponges at this time.'
By law of parsimony, the most likely explanation is that sponges arose once, and survived. While it isn't impossible that two similar organisms evolved from the same organism to fill a niche, it is tough to show evidence that two identically structured organisms arose twice, at different times. Most often when this happens, it happens at relatively close time intervals in physically separated areas, with simple changes. Seeing evidence to the contrary would be amazing, but in molecular evolution and probabilistic modeling, the more assumptions you make, the less robust the results will be, and so far all we have is/are fossils with identical structures.
WISE's infrared telescope and detectors are kept chilled inside a Thermos-like tank of solid hydrogen, called a cryostat. This prevents WISE from picking up the heat, or infrared, signature of its own instrument. The solid hydrogen, called a cryogen, was expected to last about 10 months -- the mission launched in December 2009.
The primary tank is still running, and now will do a
second survey of about one-half the sky. It's possible the remaining coolant will run out before that scan is finished. Scientists say the second scan will help identify new and nearby objects, as well as those that have changed in brightness. It could also help to confirm oddball objects picked up in the first scan, NASA stated.
It appears, to the uninformed such as myself, that this satellite was meant to have a life of about 2 years. The good news is that it accomplished its primary mission. The bad news is that the NASA boys either didn't plan accordingly to cool it properly for its second run, or it was a hopeful objective.
Anyone else think it's odd that we're reading an article about a group of lawyers commenting about two companies coming together to broker a deal about what the government should be allowed to do?
Isn't that a little backwards? I mean, I like the EFF. But the idea that we need lawyers to tell us what's good and what's bad seems odd.
And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wrong. The FCC can do whatever the laws says they can do, Google and Verizon be damned. Who writes those laws? Those that We The People (tm) put in power.
I have to admit, I read the stories about the deal. First the NYT one that got it completely wrong, then the Engadget one, then several others that flowed out, and the EFF put it more succinctly than I could have understood. Previously, all I got out of it was, we want industry rules to remain neutral, but VZW wants some wiggle room on wireless/mobile traffic.
But surely you don't think our legislative bodies are informed enough to write laws/regulation about stuff like this? Imagine if Ted "the tubes" Stevens had been around to have a hand in NN legislation. These two parties are, but of course you have to single out what they say that will directly benefit them (screw consumers over), and see exactly what will benefit consumers.
Also forgot to mention, it isn't in the market. It has to be manually installed, with that little box checked to allow non-market apps to be installed.
After trudging through several articles, not one mentions the application's name. It does however mention that the trojan can be packed into basically anything. It also doesn't mention that only users in Russia are affected by the SMS charges.
According to Denis Maslennikov, Senior Malware Researcher at Kaspersky Lab, there's not an exact number of infected devices available at present, but the outbreak is currently regional. For now, only Russian Android users can actually lose money after installing the Trojan, but anyone can be infected.
This is always the argument I hear against organic food.
But it doesn't even taste any different, so it's a waste of money.
I didn't buy it because it tastes different. I bought it to use my money to create a demand for products like that, because of the benefit I see in those practices. The same applies for most people who buy hybrids. The rest are just being sanctimonious.
The article has an entire section about how they discussed multiple accounts (alt accounts and aliases that were previously banned) and avoiding bans. I won't quote the whole thing, just some of the direct quotes from users that are in the article.
Ron AKA Chronic: You can create another account. Worse comes to worse, you can just lay low for a bit and then come back.
JasonQPublic: Zach, if they won’t reinstate your account, you really don’t have to leave digg unless you just want to. Just follow the steps below.
1. Go to whatismyip.com/ and write down the IP address that is displayed at the top of the page.
2. Turn off your cable or DSL modem for approx. 5 minutes then turn it back on.
3. When you are connected to the internet again, make sure that the IP address displayed at the top of the page is different from the one that you wrote down in step 1. If it is not different, go back to step 2 and leave modem off for longer period of time.
4. Create a new email address at your favorite email site.
5. Go to Digg and create a new account using the new email address.
I’ve been permanently banned 4 or 5 times. You gotta make sure you got a month or so between [accounts]. The libs make a big deal out of start dates on profiles after one of us returns from getting permanently banned. Maybe we should have 10 or 15 identities created so the next time one of us gets a permanent ban we could come back with an identity that was created weeks or months before. Kind of like Jeff came back as Benthedog and they had no clue.
-Phoenixtx
So, next time I get banned I’ll also log off FP and twitter first, with the original IP and then create new accounts there with a new IP, then create a new account at digg. Of course you’ll also have to delete all cookies and web bugs from the three sites too.
-Minarchian
I don't care that the leftist groups do it too. Both groups are being douches and need to suck it up and face it that not everyone wants an opinion shoved down their throats.
I suppose you didn't even bother looking at the Alternet article, so your claim that there is no proof, has no proof. It goes on to list most of the users, their aliases (some people had 5+), discussions in their yahoo group about how to about bans. He joined the group and has pages of emails that the group sends out to organize burying efforts. It actually has tons of evidence.
From the article:
To all of our new group members: We are really happy you have joined us at DiggPatriots! Please remember this is a group that we are trying to keep below the radar. Please do not disclose this group’s existence to anyone outside the group on Digg or elsewhere. The longer we can keep this group on the down low, the better. I know you probably aready knew that, but I wanted to make sure we are all on the same page as far as the keeping this group from being exposed to the public.
-Ron AKA ChronicColonic
I have to agree, I liked the old system. The new system basically asks you "if you had moderated this comment, what would you have voted?" Whereas the old one asked, did this moderator get in the ballpark with his vote? Of course, the biggest flaw I found was when I was asked to metamod my own comment. I sent that along to CmdrTaco, so he said something would be done about it.
That's exactly why I stopped going to digg. When it first started, it was sort of a novel idea, and I saw some interesting stories. Then the whole "power user" thing was brought to light, which made it seem artificial. And of course then the stories became more political, turning it into just either a troll fest, or a bury fest by whoever garnered the most sway in users. I haven't been back there in years.
While/. may be plagued slightly by moderation, we at least have editors (I suppose kdawson counts), and metamoderation to keep the mods in check. The only thing that has annoyed me in recent years is how stories are pretty much either the same aggregate on other sites, or how techdirt (which I do read) gets its stories posted (blame Andover.net).
Websites which give power to users will always find themselves in a similar situation: how do you keep people from scamming the system, while still giving a semblance of influence.
I didn't say they are damning. I said they are considered damning because of the uproar coming from the DoD. Everyone is making such a huge debacle about it, which usually means there is something in the huge pile that they don't want public. The whole thing about putting people at risk is moot since no specific people are mentioned when wikileaks releases the documents.
I'm not even going to answer your straw man. I don't recall saying anything about any other documents from the military.
I am personally left almost speechless at this disconnect from reality demonstrated by the military. I am a USMC Iraq war vet, and find these policies completely ridiculous. They show the inability of our supposedly technologically knowledgeable military to fuse this knowledge with policy, mostly due to the political pressure that has erupted to 'take care of' the Wikileaks problem.
From an outsider, I'm not shocked at all by this disconnect. The military has always displayed its "leave your individual thinking to us" mentality, which I suppose is a way to stifle dissent, but by no means a way to effectively relay information anywhere, except at the top. I am, however, happy to find that individual service members do actually think for themselves, and I'm sure some will commit this so called willing security violation. Instead of trying to force the water back into the spigot, they should be finding a way to funnel the water in a way that is beneficial, or at least, less damaging to them. Like always, the people who run things are always out of touch with reality, and are unwilling to adapt policy/behavior when shit hits the fan.
The fact that these documents are considered so damning is exactly why they should be public. Change for the better, in situations like these, never happens purely by choice, but rather because someone (individuals or entities) is actually pointed out and told "I know you fucked up, now what are you going to do about it?" And like most cases, the public is always the most expedient avenue.
Slashdot Mirror
Since when in the hell do you count common matches as proof that it comes from one person? Some of these labs are doing something very wrong, and I hate to think of both the false positives, and negatives, that came from their "expert" opinions.
While I didn't experience it on my last 2 installs, I had to disable ipv6 in Fedora to get networking to work properly. I've since had it enabled no problem, but from my the perspective of most end users like me, we probably won't even notice when things start using ipv6.
Abstract:
It was peer reviewed, so I would suspect that their methods weren't trash.
By law of parsimony, the most likely explanation is that sponges arose once, and survived. While it isn't impossible that two similar organisms evolved from the same organism to fill a niche, it is tough to show evidence that two identically structured organisms arose twice, at different times. Most often when this happens, it happens at relatively close time intervals in physically separated areas, with simple changes. Seeing evidence to the contrary would be amazing, but in molecular evolution and probabilistic modeling, the more assumptions you make, the less robust the results will be, and so far all we have is/are fossils with identical structures.
I look forward to a 'thinkofthechildren' argument from some congressman in the future about why it should be illegal here.
Why does Google find it necessary to compromise? They carry pretty heavy clout on their own without having to cave.
But NASA is a scientific entity. We use SI units. Fahrenheit is, as you put it, just a common measure of temperature.
From my understanding of the article, they didn't have any plans to replenish it.
K - 273.15 = C
The primary tank is still running, and now will do a
It appears, to the uninformed such as myself, that this satellite was meant to have a life of about 2 years. The good news is that it accomplished its primary mission. The bad news is that the NASA boys either didn't plan accordingly to cool it properly for its second run, or it was a hopeful objective.
Anyone else think it's odd that we're reading an article about a group of lawyers commenting about two companies coming together to broker a deal about what the government should be allowed to do? Isn't that a little backwards? I mean, I like the EFF. But the idea that we need lawyers to tell us what's good and what's bad seems odd. And having two giants acting like they can simply write legislature is balls to the walls wrong. The FCC can do whatever the laws says they can do, Google and Verizon be damned. Who writes those laws? Those that We The People (tm) put in power.
I have to admit, I read the stories about the deal. First the NYT one that got it completely wrong, then the Engadget one, then several others that flowed out, and the EFF put it more succinctly than I could have understood. Previously, all I got out of it was, we want industry rules to remain neutral, but VZW wants some wiggle room on wireless/mobile traffic.
But surely you don't think our legislative bodies are informed enough to write laws/regulation about stuff like this? Imagine if Ted "the tubes" Stevens had been around to have a hand in NN legislation. These two parties are, but of course you have to single out what they say that will directly benefit them (screw consumers over), and see exactly what will benefit consumers.
Oh my god, are you people still blithering on about this. It's a story about martial law enacted because of zombies. From The Onion.
Also forgot to mention, it isn't in the market. It has to be manually installed, with that little box checked to allow non-market apps to be installed.
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/first_trojan_for_android_phones_goes_wild.php
I didn't buy it because it tastes different. I bought it to use my money to create a demand for products like that, because of the benefit I see in those practices. The same applies for most people who buy hybrids. The rest are just being sanctimonious.
The article has an entire section about how they discussed multiple accounts (alt accounts and aliases that were previously banned) and avoiding bans. I won't quote the whole thing, just some of the direct quotes from users that are in the article.
I don't care that the leftist groups do it too. Both groups are being douches and need to suck it up and face it that not everyone wants an opinion shoved down their throats.
From the article:
I have to agree, I liked the old system. The new system basically asks you "if you had moderated this comment, what would you have voted?" Whereas the old one asked, did this moderator get in the ballpark with his vote?
Of course, the biggest flaw I found was when I was asked to metamod my own comment. I sent that along to CmdrTaco, so he said something would be done about it.
That's exactly why I stopped going to digg. When it first started, it was sort of a novel idea, and I saw some interesting stories. Then the whole "power user" thing was brought to light, which made it seem artificial. And of course then the stories became more political, turning it into just either a troll fest, or a bury fest by whoever garnered the most sway in users. I haven't been back there in years.
/. may be plagued slightly by moderation, we at least have editors (I suppose kdawson counts), and metamoderation to keep the mods in check. The only thing that has annoyed me in recent years is how stories are pretty much either the same aggregate on other sites, or how techdirt (which I do read) gets its stories posted (blame Andover.net).
While
Websites which give power to users will always find themselves in a similar situation: how do you keep people from scamming the system, while still giving a semblance of influence.
I didn't say they are damning. I said they are considered damning because of the uproar coming from the DoD. Everyone is making such a huge debacle about it, which usually means there is something in the huge pile that they don't want public. The whole thing about putting people at risk is moot since no specific people are mentioned when wikileaks releases the documents.
I'm not even going to answer your straw man. I don't recall saying anything about any other documents from the military.
From an outsider, I'm not shocked at all by this disconnect. The military has always displayed its "leave your individual thinking to us" mentality, which I suppose is a way to stifle dissent, but by no means a way to effectively relay information anywhere, except at the top. I am, however, happy to find that individual service members do actually think for themselves, and I'm sure some will commit this so called willing security violation. Instead of trying to force the water back into the spigot, they should be finding a way to funnel the water in a way that is beneficial, or at least, less damaging to them. Like always, the people who run things are always out of touch with reality, and are unwilling to adapt policy/behavior when shit hits the fan.
The fact that these documents are considered so damning is exactly why they should be public. Change for the better, in situations like these, never happens purely by choice, but rather because someone (individuals or entities) is actually pointed out and told "I know you fucked up, now what are you going to do about it?" And like most cases, the public is always the most expedient avenue.
It was a Fight Club reference. I believe you by the way.
Joking aside, why not just make a federal sysadmin to prevent people from doing anything useful with their computers?
Joking aside, why not just make a federal sysadmin to block users from doing anything useful with their computers?
His name was Steven Ruhe. His name was Steven Ruhe.