First, if you think that ignoring presence of sexual needs, and how to properly defuse or redirect the tension stemming from it, is "professionalism", you are amazingly naive.
Second, you are also incredibly naive if you think that the world "generally" don't need negotiation skills. Modern society (i.e. post-cave men) runs on diplomacy and negotiation. Only the childish would think that pointing out mistakes only serves to satisfy some sort of personal gratification. As another poster pointed out, clarification is very useful and productive.
And often in life there are situations where "right" and "wrong" are not so clear, especially seen from different points of view. And that is where negotiations are important. People who don't see any need for negotiations are probably either narcissists who think they are always right, or someone so meek and uncertain that they think they are always wrong.
Third, in one post you try to portray yourself as subjective and clear thinking, and won't make judgments based on unrelated information. And yet, in the next post, you became so prickly with nomadic's post on what seems like a rather valid rebuttal to one of your points. For someone who supposedly doesn't care about pointing out right or wrong, you seem to take offence at such a reasonable argument, and that seems to show that despite what you claim, your arguments do seem to be colored by your personal biases.
Last, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is homophobic because it bars anyone who is openly homosexual from serving in the military. So soldier A (heterosexual male) can talk to other soldiers about his wife and kids or his girlfriend, but soldier B (homosexual male) is unable to do so because if he does, he can be expelled. And you don't think this is homophobic?
It's because the Gizmodo write-up is a hyperbolic piece of crap.
... a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today.
Bullshit. That's not what's claimed, and the DNA structure is still essentially the same, except that phosphorus has been replaced by arsenic. And it has been theorized, just not found until now.
but at least they have now removed the stupid sentence which said:
this discovery does indeed change everything we know about biology.
It's like they were practicing writing script for some crappy sci-fi B movie.
Not to mention TFA is one of the most garbled up piece of hyperbolic shit written about the news.
"...her team have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today."
Not really, the structure is still most the same, except phosphorus is very likely swapped out for arsenic. They don't have a direct proof that phosphorus is used in DNA yet, but it's very likely. It has been a theoretical possibiltiy, and now they very likely have found the example.
"...this discovery does indeed change everything we know about biology."
Err.... no, it changes some concepts, but a lot of what we know about biology is still the same. Eating arsenic is still going to kill people.
I am not disputing the importance of this finding, but as NASA scientist said, it expands what we know about biology, rather than "change(s) everything we know".
Not to mention that a whole bunch of stuff happens between transcription (DNA -> RNA) and translation (RNA -> protein).
The ends have to be capped and modified, in eukaryotes the transcript is only a precursor and has to be spliced into the mature sequence, then the whole thing is exported from the nucleus to the cytoplasm.
Plus there's a whole bunch of stuff happening that we don't really know about, like pseudouridylation and methylation of specific sites.
Not to mention, there's always the good old mutation that occurs. We only know about mutations that get passed on, but these are blood cells (made by bone marrow), not germline cells.
2) A piece of glass gets broken once only. They are not counting how many policies are invoked, but how many times (or how many pieces of broken glass) policies are invoked.
Besides, the point of the example was to show that your extrapolation of expected value from the average probability is total bunk. Without knowing what the distribution is, you can't assert anything like that.
Face it, you know you are wrong and you are just grasping at straws.
[Sigh...] Fortunately, I didn't have to learn maths in the US schools, so I have no idea what is GCSE.
Let me point out one (of many) glaring error in your assumption: you are assuming the accident rate is constant for every year of the device's lifetime.
But let's use your "logic", then it will actually mean that every device will have an accident within 11 years.
And it seems like you totally failed to read the conclusions. For example:
Despite this troubling increase, it's important to take the accident rate into perspective. Overall, the iPhone is still a very well constructed device, with a non-accident malfunction rate much lower than most other consumer electronics.
...It may yet be seen that even with the double glass, the iPhone has an overall failure rate that is still better than the competition.
Are you telling me that it's Squaretrade's fault that iPhone 4 has twice as much glass and is twice as likely to break?
I don't see you arguing that the numbers they provided are wrong, so how are they being deceptive? They simply reported that in the 4 months since iPhone 4 came out, almost twice as many suffer breakages as 3GS, which is numbers from their own customers. I totally fail to see how this is deceptive.
Do you mean they should have reported a lower (and false) number just because iPhone 4 is... more fragile?
So you want a picture of a shattered glass with particles embedded inside the cracks? That could be faked too.
Or do you want a Mythbuster doing a special on them? N=1 as they usually do for experimental replicates is not very rigorous scientific method.
I guess somebody better buy a batch of 1000 iPhones and said cases and do properly designed experiment. But wait, results can be biased in experiments too!
If you are going to skeptic about things, nothing's going to be enough to convince you. Besides, as the article states, this started from an inside source saying Apple is looking into the issue. Likely they were getting more shattered iPhone 4's than they expected and so they are looking into the cause of it. And they probably found that this was the most likely or plausible cause of the case shattering.
No need to get your knickers in a bunch, the mob hasn't got out the pitchforks and torches to burn down Apple HQ just yet, and Apple is just trying to prevent some bad publicity and angry customers whose shiny gadgets are not as shiny any more. There is no conspiracy going on here, and they are not out to smear your favorite gadget supplier(s).
Yeah, I remember! Just like back when Apple stopped using PowerPC in their computers and switched to Intel, when just about 99% of 'manufactured' computers were still shipping with... oh, wait...
Actually, In Australia non-coin money is made of plastic, burning and smoking it would be considerably more toxic than burning books, and people will get quite upset about it.
They are also mostly non-green, except for the hundred-dollar bill.
Slashdot Mirror
First, if you think that ignoring presence of sexual needs, and how to properly defuse or redirect the tension stemming from it, is "professionalism", you are amazingly naive.
Second, you are also incredibly naive if you think that the world "generally" don't need negotiation skills. Modern society (i.e. post-cave men) runs on diplomacy and negotiation. Only the childish would think that pointing out mistakes only serves to satisfy some sort of personal gratification. As another poster pointed out, clarification is very useful and productive.
And often in life there are situations where "right" and "wrong" are not so clear, especially seen from different points of view. And that is where negotiations are important. People who don't see any need for negotiations are probably either narcissists who think they are always right, or someone so meek and uncertain that they think they are always wrong.
Third, in one post you try to portray yourself as subjective and clear thinking, and won't make judgments based on unrelated information. And yet, in the next post, you became so prickly with nomadic's post on what seems like a rather valid rebuttal to one of your points. For someone who supposedly doesn't care about pointing out right or wrong, you seem to take offence at such a reasonable argument, and that seems to show that despite what you claim, your arguments do seem to be colored by your personal biases.
Last, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" is homophobic because it bars anyone who is openly homosexual from serving in the military. So soldier A (heterosexual male) can talk to other soldiers about his wife and kids or his girlfriend, but soldier B (homosexual male) is unable to do so because if he does, he can be expelled. And you don't think this is homophobic?
... a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today.
Bullshit. That's not what's claimed, and the DNA structure is still essentially the same, except that phosphorus has been replaced by arsenic. And it has been theorized, just not found until now.
but at least they have now removed the stupid sentence which said:
this discovery does indeed change everything we know about biology.
It's like they were practicing writing script for some crappy sci-fi B movie.
"...her team have found a bacteria whose DNA is completely alien to what we know today."
Not really, the structure is still most the same, except phosphorus is very likely swapped out for arsenic. They don't have a direct proof that phosphorus is used in DNA yet, but it's very likely. It has been a theoretical possibiltiy, and now they very likely have found the example.
"...this discovery does indeed change everything we know about biology."
Err.... no, it changes some concepts, but a lot of what we know about biology is still the same. Eating arsenic is still going to kill people.
I am not disputing the importance of this finding, but as NASA scientist said, it expands what we know about biology, rather than "change(s) everything we know".
Why not just link to NASA? http://www.nasa.gov/topics/universe/features/astrobiology_toxic_chemical.html
Even NY Times has a better write up: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/science/03arsenic.html?src=mv&pagewanted=all
Not to mention that a whole bunch of stuff happens between transcription (DNA -> RNA) and translation (RNA -> protein).
The ends have to be capped and modified, in eukaryotes the transcript is only a precursor and has to be spliced into the mature sequence, then the whole thing is exported from the nucleus to the cytoplasm.
Plus there's a whole bunch of stuff happening that we don't really know about, like pseudouridylation and methylation of specific sites.
Not to mention, there's always the good old mutation that occurs. We only know about mutations that get passed on, but these are blood cells (made by bone marrow), not germline cells.
Very open-minded and knowledge-seeking.
Besides, science and mathematics are not democratic processes. The mob usually gets it wrong.
Don't need to. I told some statistician friends about this, and we all had a good laugh at people's common misconception about statistics.
In return, they told me some stories about people applying standard deviation on experiments with N=3.
Apparently many people like you think statistics is easy.
Round 4.
1) Read up on Poisson process.
2) A piece of glass gets broken once only. They are not counting how many policies are invoked, but how many times (or how many pieces of broken glass) policies are invoked.
Besides, the point of the example was to show that your extrapolation of expected value from the average probability is total bunk. Without knowing what the distribution is, you can't assert anything like that.
Face it, you know you are wrong and you are just grasping at straws.
Average death rate per 1000 per year for US is 8.2 (from the Wikipedia), and so by your logic, average life expectancy is ~122 years.
You are just bad at understanding statistics.
And assuming 8% accident rate is constant through out the device's life time is plain stupid and totally non-intuitive.
Ninja Cat
[Sigh...] Fortunately, I didn't have to learn maths in the US schools, so I have no idea what is GCSE.
Let me point out one (of many) glaring error in your assumption: you are assuming the accident rate is constant for every year of the device's lifetime.
But let's use your "logic", then it will actually mean that every device will have an accident within 11 years.
Despite this troubling increase, it's important to take the accident rate into perspective. Overall, the iPhone is still a very well constructed device, with a non-accident malfunction rate much lower than most other consumer electronics.
...It may yet be seen that even with the double glass, the iPhone has an overall failure rate that is still better than the competition.
What is all this apologetics?
Are you telling me that it's Squaretrade's fault that iPhone 4 has twice as much glass and is twice as likely to break?
I don't see you arguing that the numbers they provided are wrong, so how are they being deceptive? They simply reported that in the 4 months since iPhone 4 came out, almost twice as many suffer breakages as 3GS, which is numbers from their own customers. I totally fail to see how this is deceptive.
Do you mean they should have reported a lower (and false) number just because iPhone 4 is ... more fragile?
Why are Apple users often so irrational?
If their nuts are the size of coconuts, I think they have more serious problems to worry about than just cracked phones.
9% annual accident rate implies one accident requiring an insurance claim in 11 years.
Where did you learn maths?
9% annual accident rate means if 10 million 3GS's were sold, 900,000 of them will have an accident within a year.
15.5% annual accident rate for the iPhone 4 means that if 10 million units were sold, 1.5 million will have an accident within a year.
Perhaps the Apple premium is really just higher insurance coverage required by the fragile units.
Go on, be a man, break the contract! You know you want to.
http://elephantentrepreneur.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Apple-Fans-sticker-on-forehead.jpg
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1465996128078930360wUFpzL
"Oh I get it you made a funny because You don't have an iPhone!" - Fouad from Family Guy.
I could live with a few scratches, I just wish I could have a WiFi connection on my Android phone for more than sixty seconds.
That'd teach you not to buy secondhand crappy phones that's taken a swim in the toilet.
check out 1:15.
Buying a new phone is even more trivial, doesn't mean owners should expect to do so though.
Although a couple Apple owners I know will probably be quite happy to have any reason to buy a new iPhone every few months.
Um I didn't actually read the article, I linked it for the picture. I only ever read them for the pictures and centerfolds.
So you want a picture of a shattered glass with particles embedded inside the cracks? That could be faked too.
Or do you want a Mythbuster doing a special on them? N=1 as they usually do for experimental replicates is not very rigorous scientific method.
I guess somebody better buy a batch of 1000 iPhones and said cases and do properly designed experiment. But wait, results can be biased in experiments too!
If you are going to skeptic about things, nothing's going to be enough to convince you. Besides, as the article states, this started from an inside source saying Apple is looking into the issue. Likely they were getting more shattered iPhone 4's than they expected and so they are looking into the cause of it. And they probably found that this was the most likely or plausible cause of the case shattering.
No need to get your knickers in a bunch, the mob hasn't got out the pitchforks and torches to burn down Apple HQ just yet, and Apple is just trying to prevent some bad publicity and angry customers whose shiny gadgets are not as shiny any more. There is no conspiracy going on here, and they are not out to smear your favorite gadget supplier(s).
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/07/apple-afraid-of-a-shattering-followup-to-its-antennagate-woes/
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=iphone+4+shattered
several of the top results are images of the same phones.
Yeah, I remember! Just like back when Apple stopped using PowerPC in their computers and switched to Intel, when just about 99% of 'manufactured' computers were still shipping with ... oh, wait...
Actually, In Australia non-coin money is made of plastic, burning and smoking it would be considerably more toxic than burning books, and people will get quite upset about it. They are also mostly non-green, except for the hundred-dollar bill.