Incorrect. Your chances will be (roughly) N * base line chance if you buy N tickets. Buying all tickets garuantees you success!
OTOH: It is well known that playing the lottery is paying an extra tax voluntarily. I encourage everyone to do that, won't do myself.
Your kidneys filter at the molecular level and thus are VERY good at preventing bacteria from entering your bladder. If bacteria ever entered your bladder, you'd routinely have bladder and/or urinary tract infections, namely because no blood flows to those regions so you have no T cells to combat it. While urine smells foul and probably tastes worse, it wouldn't kill you to drink it. (But still don't do it anyways because it contains waste materials that your kidneys removed from your blood for a very good reason.)
That said, we also have the artificial means of doing the filtering job that kidneys do, so it wouldn't surprise me if this technique also worked on poo.
Kidneys extract part of the blood stream. As blood is (almost) sterile so is the *primary* urine, i.e. what enters the ureter. The urethra OTOH teems with bacteria so that bacteria do enter the bladder although in very small quantities. The bladder cavity is very much hardened due to the chemical agressiveness of urine and is regularely flushed so that this is not a problem (remember that bacteria replicate on the order of hours, only some faster, so that over night bacterial count can only increase by a factor of 256).
Profit margins are often lower than that. For example, retail operations might operate on 3% profit margins. Also sales can be moved around thereby gaming such a system. Partnering companies can internalize sales by forming holdings etc.
A pleasant surprise for me was to discover that useradd now allows to create a group for the user at the same time (I am not 100% sure whether is really new to 13.2). It has always been a nuisance having to manually perform the group creation.
I would argue that this is precisely what the discussion revolves around. It is not (too) difficult to reconcile science with biblical teaching. However, accepting the science allows for an interpretation without god. This makes it harder to believe and this is what causes resistance. It is simpler to believe if you have "proof" (i.e. science is wrong).
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
This statement is very much debatable. Mathematical derivations need to be trusted. If you check them yourself you have to trust yourself not to have made errors. If you do it automatically you have to trust that program. Ultimately this factor kreeps into all of science (if you could reproduce my experiment, how do you know that was not chance? How do you know I correctly described my experiment? and so on).
Wrong. The issue is that publishing is considered sufficient.
It should be publish or die. How do you know they're doing anything if they don't publish? they could be reading slashdot all day for all you know otherwise.
FTFY
But as is made clear here, simply publishing and getting it through peer review is clearly not good enough. We need to increase what they have to do to avoid this situation.
For example... maybe one scientist pays another scientist to reproduce his work.
Maybe you have big collections of graduate students that as part of their process of getting a degree get assigned some random papers submitted by scientists in their field and they have to reproduce the work.
Obviously this isn't always possible... but whenever it isn't possible that needs to be put as a giant red asterisk on the paper saying "this work has not been reproduced"...
Do that and you're not going to get as much fraud or laziness.
I think that there is a common misunderstanding about the function of a publication. First and foremost it is a progress report of the scientist. This creates a lot of published noise - no doubt - OTOH it creates something that can be measured. This is absolutely critical to keep the scientific circus running (in a positive way). There are different ways to measure quality (which journal, reading an abstract, reading an article, asking by email) and scientific progress/quality is somewhat orthogonal to the publishing process. If you want to be sure of something be sure you have your act together to judge publications. The system can be gamed but it is not a problem in itself.
It should be pointed out that there is the notion of a significant proportions of jurors being fooled, i.e. there has to be statistical test showing that the proportion is bigger than a pre-specified threshold, given a pre-specified level of significance. Giving a resulting threshold by itself is meaningless.
The Turing test is well defined and can be carried out whereas "originating a 'program' that it was not engineered to produce" is utterly undefined and a test could therefore not be carried out.
Hm..., what is to be learned here?
You promote quantity over quality and I could not disagree more. Learn one tool well and next one will not be new but just a variation of the theme.
Re:Yes, Perl is indeed dead and rotting
on
Perl Is Undead
·
· Score: 1
I am a Perl developer of 20 years. Yet I feel that the lack of modern OO-syntax and -semantics makes the language akward to use. There is Moose but it comes with a startup performance penalty and syntax-modifiers like MooseX::Declare make such code incredibly difficult to debug. Yet there are some CPAN-modules for which I could not find replacments yet for either Python or Ruby.
Parse::RecDescent allows you to write powerful parsers in an (IMO) incredibly sane way using (modified) BNF
DBIx::* is a set of modules for ORM that allow you to write OO-database code without *any* glue code
I would like to learn about alternatives (I am personally leaning more to Ruby than to Python). If Moose with MooseX::Declare would go into the core language without performance penalty, I would be happy for the next 10 years.
We weren't the first complicated life here. It took several mass extinctions, but then humanity as we know it took around 300,000 years to evolve from the ancestor primates, give or take a few million to get from the single-cell stage.
That would be a few million years from the splitting off of primates and a few billion years from the single-cell stage.
And through an accident of evolution our atmosphere was flooded with toxic oxygen early on. It's quite possible that any alien astronomers would have glanced at our world and thought "Whoa - an oxygen atmosphere, that's weird. What sort of hellish fire-stormed world do you imagine *that* would make for? Well, we're not going to find any life there, make a note in the logs and lets keep looking for more promising candidates."
I believe that would be a strong indication *for* life being present. Oxygen is a reactive molecule which would vanish by chemical reactions normally. Its presence indicates a steady state equilibrium which is one of the hallmarks of life.
Negative correlation is proof in the very same way as positive correlation. You probably mean absence of correlation, which, on the other hand can never be proven. The only thing provable is that correlation is below a predefined threshold, i.e. small.
I definitely concur. The depth of implementations of statistical methods dwarfs that of other languages (with Matlab coming closest). Two more aspects to add:
R can be used to program in functional style. Together with being a vectorized language this can make programs more compact while still readable. This was what made me stick with R which is now one of my preferred languages.
There is also the micro-DSL called formulas in R. Unless another programming language implements something similar, R will always be superior in specifying and working with statistical models. Escpecially, implementing new statistical methods is made much simpler using this machinery (plus tailor-made data handling: merging, missing data, etc.).
All databases are relational (noSQL or otherwise). SQL formalizes some aspects of relational algebra but this does not imply anything about the implementation nor necessarily about the interface. If you like "simpler" interfaces use ODBC/ORMs on SQL or noSQL databases.
I am digitally subscribed to Scientific American (German version) which is delivierd in DRM-free pdf. I remember that I relished just browsing magazines when I was young and I believe that this experience is gone for good. However, the experience can come close by using the internet to browse the issues and then bringing up the pdf on the tablet.
Being in the field, I would like to add that transition to private industry might be more difficult for biomedical researchers as compared to engineers. Private employers are mainly pharma, some agriculture. Most employment trajectories leave research and even the biomedical field entirely. That being said, the standards for getting a PhD seem rather low nowadays (Europe/US) such that a tightening of standards could potentially lead to a virtuous circle (less researchers, better quality -> better research -> higher standards).
Carefully read the statitics: banker killings are counted negative, so that in Lichtenstein every non-banker murder is offset by a banker-killing. Research shows that indeed the net-effect is zero.
The next calendar system is as boring and irrelevant as the next programming language.
Time is defined and measured by the passing of base unit (say a second) which can be counted. A calendar system is a surface on top of that unit. Make your pick but please do not bother others with your *better* new system.
The claim that proteins cause intolerance seems wrong. Proteins are chains of amino acids for which a broad arsenal of digestive enzymes exist. Deficiencies in those lead to severe disease. Parent probably meant lactose intolerance (thus sugar digestion).
There are other limiting factors eventually causing life to go extinct. One important is CO2 which is absorbed into the oceans and recirculated by volcanic activity driven by radioactivity. Radioactivity will cease in about 500 mio yrs, IIRC, which is when life will end due to scarcity of CO2.
Given that space tourists would most likely go only once, fatality rates should be compared on a per-trip basis. It appears to me that this implies quite a low per-trip fatality rate.
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect. Your chances will be (roughly) N * base line chance if you buy N tickets. Buying all tickets garuantees you success! OTOH: It is well known that playing the lottery is paying an extra tax voluntarily. I encourage everyone to do that, won't do myself.
Hm... can this clock be moved at all? You will always move by a fraction of the remaining time, which, you know, proves that doomsday does not exist.
Your kidneys filter at the molecular level and thus are VERY good at preventing bacteria from entering your bladder. If bacteria ever entered your bladder, you'd routinely have bladder and/or urinary tract infections, namely because no blood flows to those regions so you have no T cells to combat it. While urine smells foul and probably tastes worse, it wouldn't kill you to drink it. (But still don't do it anyways because it contains waste materials that your kidneys removed from your blood for a very good reason.)
That said, we also have the artificial means of doing the filtering job that kidneys do, so it wouldn't surprise me if this technique also worked on poo.
Kidneys extract part of the blood stream. As blood is (almost) sterile so is the *primary* urine, i.e. what enters the ureter. The urethra OTOH teems with bacteria so that bacteria do enter the bladder although in very small quantities. The bladder cavity is very much hardened due to the chemical agressiveness of urine and is regularely flushed so that this is not a problem (remember that bacteria replicate on the order of hours, only some faster, so that over night bacterial count can only increase by a factor of 256).
Profit margins are often lower than that. For example, retail operations might operate on 3% profit margins. Also sales can be moved around thereby gaming such a system. Partnering companies can internalize sales by forming holdings etc.
A pleasant surprise for me was to discover that useradd now allows to create a group for the user at the same time (I am not 100% sure whether is really new to 13.2). It has always been a nuisance having to manually perform the group creation.
I would argue that this is precisely what the discussion revolves around. It is not (too) difficult to reconcile science with biblical teaching. However, accepting the science allows for an interpretation without god. This makes it harder to believe and this is what causes resistance. It is simpler to believe if you have "proof" (i.e. science is wrong).
Science is about reproducible results. Publish the details of your experiment, so I can perform your experiment (and variations on it) myself. Your claim is strengthened if I get the same results you do.
This statement is very much debatable. Mathematical derivations need to be trusted. If you check them yourself you have to trust yourself not to have made errors. If you do it automatically you have to trust that program. Ultimately this factor kreeps into all of science (if you could reproduce my experiment, how do you know that was not chance? How do you know I correctly described my experiment? and so on).
Wrong. The issue is that publishing is considered sufficient.
It should be publish or die. How do you know they're doing anything if they don't publish? they could be reading slashdot all day for all you know otherwise.
FTFY
But as is made clear here, simply publishing and getting it through peer review is clearly not good enough. We need to increase what they have to do to avoid this situation.
For example... maybe one scientist pays another scientist to reproduce his work.
Maybe you have big collections of graduate students that as part of their process of getting a degree get assigned some random papers submitted by scientists in their field and they have to reproduce the work.
Obviously this isn't always possible... but whenever it isn't possible that needs to be put as a giant red asterisk on the paper saying "this work has not been reproduced"...
Do that and you're not going to get as much fraud or laziness.
I think that there is a common misunderstanding about the function of a publication. First and foremost it is a progress report of the scientist. This creates a lot of published noise - no doubt - OTOH it creates something that can be measured. This is absolutely critical to keep the scientific circus running (in a positive way). There are different ways to measure quality (which journal, reading an abstract, reading an article, asking by email) and scientific progress/quality is somewhat orthogonal to the publishing process. If you want to be sure of something be sure you have your act together to judge publications. The system can be gamed but it is not a problem in itself.
It should be pointed out that there is the notion of a significant proportions of jurors being fooled, i.e. there has to be statistical test showing that the proportion is bigger than a pre-specified threshold, given a pre-specified level of significance. Giving a resulting threshold by itself is meaningless. The Turing test is well defined and can be carried out whereas "originating a 'program' that it was not engineered to produce" is utterly undefined and a test could therefore not be carried out.
Hm..., what is to be learned here? You promote quantity over quality and I could not disagree more. Learn one tool well and next one will not be new but just a variation of the theme.
I am a Perl developer of 20 years. Yet I feel that the lack of modern OO-syntax and -semantics makes the language akward to use. There is Moose but it comes with a startup performance penalty and syntax-modifiers like MooseX::Declare make such code incredibly difficult to debug. Yet there are some CPAN-modules for which I could not find replacments yet for either Python or Ruby. Parse::RecDescent allows you to write powerful parsers in an (IMO) incredibly sane way using (modified) BNF DBIx::* is a set of modules for ORM that allow you to write OO-database code without *any* glue code I would like to learn about alternatives (I am personally leaning more to Ruby than to Python). If Moose with MooseX::Declare would go into the core language without performance penalty, I would be happy for the next 10 years.
Seems only to be a blog post of the UoM. Did anybody dig up the publication?
We weren't the first complicated life here. It took several mass extinctions, but then humanity as we know it took around 300,000 years to evolve from the ancestor primates, give or take a few million to get from the single-cell stage.
That would be a few million years from the splitting off of primates and a few billion years from the single-cell stage.
And through an accident of evolution our atmosphere was flooded with toxic oxygen early on. It's quite possible that any alien astronomers would have glanced at our world and thought "Whoa - an oxygen atmosphere, that's weird. What sort of hellish fire-stormed world do you imagine *that* would make for? Well, we're not going to find any life there, make a note in the logs and lets keep looking for more promising candidates."
I believe that would be a strong indication *for* life being present. Oxygen is a reactive molecule which would vanish by chemical reactions normally. Its presence indicates a steady state equilibrium which is one of the hallmarks of life.
Negative correlation is proof in the very same way as positive correlation. You probably mean absence of correlation, which, on the other hand can never be proven. The only thing provable is that correlation is below a predefined threshold, i.e. small.
Just plug your gamepad into the USB port.
I definitely concur. The depth of implementations of statistical methods dwarfs that of other languages (with Matlab coming closest). Two more aspects to add: R can be used to program in functional style. Together with being a vectorized language this can make programs more compact while still readable. This was what made me stick with R which is now one of my preferred languages. There is also the micro-DSL called formulas in R. Unless another programming language implements something similar, R will always be superior in specifying and working with statistical models. Escpecially, implementing new statistical methods is made much simpler using this machinery (plus tailor-made data handling: merging, missing data, etc.).
All databases are relational (noSQL or otherwise). SQL formalizes some aspects of relational algebra but this does not imply anything about the implementation nor necessarily about the interface. If you like "simpler" interfaces use ODBC/ORMs on SQL or noSQL databases.
I am digitally subscribed to Scientific American (German version) which is delivierd in DRM-free pdf. I remember that I relished just browsing magazines when I was young and I believe that this experience is gone for good. However, the experience can come close by using the internet to browse the issues and then bringing up the pdf on the tablet.
Being in the field, I would like to add that transition to private industry might be more difficult for biomedical researchers as compared to engineers. Private employers are mainly pharma, some agriculture. Most employment trajectories leave research and even the biomedical field entirely. That being said, the standards for getting a PhD seem rather low nowadays (Europe/US) such that a tightening of standards could potentially lead to a virtuous circle (less researchers, better quality -> better research -> higher standards).
Carefully read the statitics: banker killings are counted negative, so that in Lichtenstein every non-banker murder is offset by a banker-killing. Research shows that indeed the net-effect is zero.
The next calendar system is as boring and irrelevant as the next programming language. Time is defined and measured by the passing of base unit (say a second) which can be counted. A calendar system is a surface on top of that unit. Make your pick but please do not bother others with your *better* new system.
The claim that proteins cause intolerance seems wrong. Proteins are chains of amino acids for which a broad arsenal of digestive enzymes exist. Deficiencies in those lead to severe disease. Parent probably meant lactose intolerance (thus sugar digestion).
There are other limiting factors eventually causing life to go extinct. One important is CO2 which is absorbed into the oceans and recirculated by volcanic activity driven by radioactivity. Radioactivity will cease in about 500 mio yrs, IIRC, which is when life will end due to scarcity of CO2.
Given that space tourists would most likely go only once, fatality rates should be compared on a per-trip basis. It appears to me that this implies quite a low per-trip fatality rate.