It's been pretty well studied and the gov't actually released it on a major US city (can't remember which one) several decades ago in order to do a simulation of what an air dispersal of a biological agent would do. Plus your comment about it being a slim difference between harmless bacteria and deadly ones is kind of absurd. Putting bacteria into milk to make yogurt isn't the same thing as using anthrax. He didn't just randomly pick a bacteria to use either, he actually searched and consulted expert advice on which one would be the absolute *safest* to use.
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
He stated that he believes strongly in family values. His actions were in contradiction to his stated values. Therefore he is by definition a hypocrite. Btw, you're making yourself look foolish at this point.
Nice handwaving. Saying one thing while doing the opposite == hypocrite. You objected to my use of the word hypocrite. He clearly is a hypocrite. Pointing out that other politicians and married individuals have the potential to be hypocrites is completely irrelevant.
yeah sure. "Miss, we're going to need you to step into this line and take your bomb off so that we can put it through the x-ray machine. Oh and if you have any nail clippers or small amounts of liquids on you, we're going to need you to put them in the bin *NEXT TO YOUR FREAKING BOMB*"
What's "hypocrite" about Larry Craig? Did he ask the undercover officer to (same-sex) marry him?
Please, the guy pushes family values and "preserving the sanctity of marriage" crap while at the same time trolling men's rooms for dudes to bang. Which part is not hypocritical in your mind, the family values or sanctity of marriage part? It's been a few years since I got married, but I don't remember any of my marriage vows including a loophole for gay sex in the men's room.
Where's the ACLU when you need 'em? I would think a case like this would be right up their alley. I know it's not as "hot" as some of the stuff they've been trying to keep to lately, but c'mon.
Busy writing amicus curiae briefs for hypocrite ex-Sen Larry Craig so that "the man" doesn't infringe on his right to peak into stalls in the airport mens room. Apparently that gets sexier headlines than looking out for the rights of the average joe.
Further, we don't have a Republican Congress anymore, so I'm not sure how that is even meaningful. I guess I'm supposed to assume that even a Democratic Congress doesn't want to "restore Habeas Corpus"?
It's a motion to end the Republican filibuster. They need 60 votes, not a simple majority. Not a single democrat voted nay, so to say the democrats did this is intellectually dishonest.
I'm not sure what your basing that opinion on. Maybe that's true on the high school level, but most people training to be scientists spend a significant amount of time learning to critically analyze the work of others. Most graduate students will have a weekly journal club as part of their coursework where the entire department gets together on a weekly basis and critically analyzes a journal article. I'd say at least a 1/3 of my courses have incorporated presenting/criticizing scientific literature or grant applications. My adviser once told me that undergraduate education is to show that you can memorize and regurgitate data, your masters is where you are required to take that data and critically analyze it, a PhD is where you learn to take that data and generate a novel hypothesis from it. Plus the scientific peer-review is generally a fairly rigorous process and most people I know take it seriously. The problem is that it relies in the scientist to be honest *and* pay close attention to detail. If you inadvertently mix up data files and say that it's something it's not, how is that the fault of the journal or peer-review? That's why the concept of independent replication is a critical part of the scientific process.
To some degree that's why it's now harder to publish genetic epidemiology papers, especially things like association studies. Many journals are now requiring that you show some kind of functional effect of a mutation that's associated with a disease; gone are the days when you can publish something just because p0.05. And while many people assumed that the inability to replicate results was due to flawed statistics/methodology, we're also finding that there are large differences between different human populations so trying to replicate a study of an Amish population in Italians may not really be a true "replication" after all.
Where in my post I used the word neuron? The vast majority of the work on correlating emotional responses has been done with brain activity (blood flow), trying to remotely detect changes in specific neurons would be an even more ridiculous scenario.
AFAIK, they do this using fMRI. So they'll need to figure out how to build a MRI machine that is big enough to fit over your house without anyone noticing and a way to keep all the ferrous metal objects in your house from turning it into one big blender, otherwise I doubt they could detect field changes that small anytime soon. I would agree with you about correlating general emotional responses with specific brain activity though.
Yeah, the lack of shuffleboard is a show-stopper for the gray hairs. Add in Super Mario Pinochle and you have a recipe for domination of the assisted living marketshare.
You have to add in Bioshock to the Xbox list. Metroid Prime does looks pretty impressive though. The novelty of the Wii controller is lost on me I guess. If I wanted to get hot and sweaty play tennis, I would actually go outside and play it.
I'm curious about how this works. We've had filters that were capable of filtering out viruses for a long time, so it's not anything new. The problem is that they clog very quickly when you try to filter anything that has large amounts of solids in it (like feces). If it's some kind of multi-stage filter that uses increasingly smaller pore size filters at each stage, how often do you need to change the filter?
Ever looked at the number of civilian casualties in Iraq war?
Those huge numbers of civilians killed in Iraq, includes the daily car/truck/suicide bombings that directly target Iraqi civilians. Saying that the US is indescriminant about killing civilians is false. Look at the great lengths to employ "smart" technologies and the ongoing prosecution of soldiers involved in incidents like Haditha
I'm surprised people still use passwords. People need to get off their asses and setup public key cryptography for all their authentication.
If someone has enough access to steal the LM hashes, couldn't they just steal your private key as well? How is that an improvement? At least with a hashed password file, they'd need to take the additional step of cracking the hashes.
2) If publishers are really contributing nothing to academic publishing, and just charge high prices and force you to sign away your rights (which I think is a fair characterization), here's a crazy idea: stop publishing through them! Set up your own journals and charge nothing or a token amount for access. If scientists are so bigoted they only deign to acknowledge work published in overpriced, unnecessary, exploitative publishers' journals, the problem is on the scientists' end.
Scientists are starting to do exactly that. There are now several peer-reviewed online journals that are open access. In particular PLoS is one which is publishing a significant amount of high-quality research. The are still two problems though, 1) there still aren't enough journals like this, in part because it costs money to have a full-time editor and do typesetting and 2) because your career is largely dependent on the number/quality of publications, it's still worth it to pay (especially when it's coming out of grant money anyway). This latter part is really what has put pressure on journals to provide open access. If it's tax payer dollars that are footing the bill then the tax payer should be able to see the results free of charge.
I hadn't heard anything about the "threat to call in the US debt" on the news, so I was going to call you out to provide a link. Then I did a google search. Makes you wonder about the timing of all these recalls on everything from childrens toys to pencils.
You seriously think Robert Gates is using *BSD? I'm sure he's constantly emailing W about the best way to optimize gcc to compile his kernel as well:-]
No, he just refused to show his receipt at the door. They had no reason to suspect he had stolen anything other than the fact that he refused to show it. He was no more suspicious than anyone else walking out of the store after buying something.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been pretty well studied and the gov't actually released it on a major US city (can't remember which one) several decades ago in order to do a simulation of what an air dispersal of a biological agent would do. Plus your comment about it being a slim difference between harmless bacteria and deadly ones is kind of absurd. Putting bacteria into milk to make yogurt isn't the same thing as using anthrax. He didn't just randomly pick a bacteria to use either, he actually searched and consulted expert advice on which one would be the absolute *safest* to use.
He stated that he believes strongly in family values. His actions were in contradiction to his stated values. Therefore he is by definition a hypocrite. Btw, you're making yourself look foolish at this point.
Nice handwaving. Saying one thing while doing the opposite == hypocrite. You objected to my use of the word hypocrite. He clearly is a hypocrite. Pointing out that other politicians and married individuals have the potential to be hypocrites is completely irrelevant.
yeah sure. "Miss, we're going to need you to step into this line and take your bomb off so that we can put it through the x-ray machine. Oh and if you have any nail clippers or small amounts of liquids on you, we're going to need you to put them in the bin *NEXT TO YOUR FREAKING BOMB*"
ok, you're pretty much spot on then.
I'm not sure what your basing that opinion on. Maybe that's true on the high school level, but most people training to be scientists spend a significant amount of time learning to critically analyze the work of others. Most graduate students will have a weekly journal club as part of their coursework where the entire department gets together on a weekly basis and critically analyzes a journal article. I'd say at least a 1/3 of my courses have incorporated presenting/criticizing scientific literature or grant applications. My adviser once told me that undergraduate education is to show that you can memorize and regurgitate data, your masters is where you are required to take that data and critically analyze it, a PhD is where you learn to take that data and generate a novel hypothesis from it. Plus the scientific peer-review is generally a fairly rigorous process and most people I know take it seriously. The problem is that it relies in the scientist to be honest *and* pay close attention to detail. If you inadvertently mix up data files and say that it's something it's not, how is that the fault of the journal or peer-review? That's why the concept of independent replication is a critical part of the scientific process.
To some degree that's why it's now harder to publish genetic epidemiology papers, especially things like association studies. Many journals are now requiring that you show some kind of functional effect of a mutation that's associated with a disease; gone are the days when you can publish something just because p0.05. And while many people assumed that the inability to replicate results was due to flawed statistics/methodology, we're also finding that there are large differences between different human populations so trying to replicate a study of an Amish population in Italians may not really be a true "replication" after all.
Where in my post I used the word neuron? The vast majority of the work on correlating emotional responses has been done with brain activity (blood flow), trying to remotely detect changes in specific neurons would be an even more ridiculous scenario.
AFAIK, they do this using fMRI. So they'll need to figure out how to build a MRI machine that is big enough to fit over your house without anyone noticing and a way to keep all the ferrous metal objects in your house from turning it into one big blender, otherwise I doubt they could detect field changes that small anytime soon. I would agree with you about correlating general emotional responses with specific brain activity though.
Yeah, the lack of shuffleboard is a show-stopper for the gray hairs. Add in Super Mario Pinochle and you have a recipe for domination of the assisted living marketshare.
You have to add in Bioshock to the Xbox list. Metroid Prime does looks pretty impressive though. The novelty of the Wii controller is lost on me I guess. If I wanted to get hot and sweaty play tennis, I would actually go outside and play it.
I'm curious about how this works. We've had filters that were capable of filtering out viruses for a long time, so it's not anything new. The problem is that they clog very quickly when you try to filter anything that has large amounts of solids in it (like feces). If it's some kind of multi-stage filter that uses increasingly smaller pore size filters at each stage, how often do you need to change the filter?
The Russians are gearing up for their own version of "Shock and Awesky"
If someone has enough access to steal the LM hashes, couldn't they just steal your private key as well? How is that an improvement? At least with a hashed password file, they'd need to take the additional step of cracking the hashes.
Scientists are starting to do exactly that. There are now several peer-reviewed online journals that are open access. In particular PLoS is one which is publishing a significant amount of high-quality research. The are still two problems though, 1) there still aren't enough journals like this, in part because it costs money to have a full-time editor and do typesetting and 2) because your career is largely dependent on the number/quality of publications, it's still worth it to pay (especially when it's coming out of grant money anyway). This latter part is really what has put pressure on journals to provide open access. If it's tax payer dollars that are footing the bill then the tax payer should be able to see the results free of charge.
I hadn't heard anything about the "threat to call in the US debt" on the news, so I was going to call you out to provide a link. Then I did a google search. Makes you wonder about the timing of all these recalls on everything from childrens toys to pencils.
You seriously think Robert Gates is using *BSD? I'm sure he's constantly emailing W about the best way to optimize gcc to compile his kernel as well :-]
As a form of protest, we should change the name to something else, like General Tommy Franks Chicken...that will teach 'em!
Not showing your receipt is not "probable cause", which is the critical part of the statute you quoted.
No, he just refused to show his receipt at the door. They had no reason to suspect he had stolen anything other than the fact that he refused to show it. He was no more suspicious than anyone else walking out of the store after buying something.