I'm not talking about laying down fibre optic broadband. I am talking about anything which can provide a means to get information out. In Burma, it was mobile phones.
I don't have an exact technical solution in mind, but it isn't outside the realms of possibility. The military set up very advanced communication networks swiftly in hostile situations. Why can't the same techniques be used in peacetime?
Yes, deploying such things would hit the same problems as deploying food and water - but the advantage being that the more you deployed it the easier it would get, as it would get easier to send in everything else that was needed.
Civilians in areas requiring aid could, if they were connected, report the movement of warlords (and as often, government troops) that might interrupt food shipments. Having lines of communication could also provide a way of verifying the contents of packages.
But nobody said that here, so your whole point is a strawman. I think its safe to assume that nobody on/. thinks correlation!=causation because that would make all science impossible.
OK, I'm going to go completely outside the box for a moment and risk getting mocked for this, but what the hell...
What if we did get people without food and clean water online?
There is enough clean water for everyone. There is enough food for everyone. It isn't getting to the people that need it for various reasons; corruption, war, market failures. The common thread in these is a lack of correct information; corruption involves people deliberately misrepresenting information, war makes it dangerous to collect information, and market failures are normally trigged by bad information.
Areas where people starve are normally pretty opaque to information and that makes it harder to help people. If we were to give people in these areas better means of communication might it help allocate resources to solving the problems of food, water etc? It would be similar to how mobile phones were used to let the world know what was happening in Burma not long ago. Better information means better action.
And can back up this rebuttal with a practical example. I am a physicist, I know sod all about blood samples, or proteins, or cancer. I get a pile of mass spec data (about a billion data points or so on some days) and through binning, background subtraction, and a string of other statistical witchcraft I produce a set of peaks labeled according to intensity and significance.
This does not make me a cancer researcher. This data has to go back to the cancer guys and they have to pick out the Biomarkers and thus develop new diagnostic tests, based on principles that I don't understand. I am master of the information but entirely blind as far as the science is concerned. Same goes for google.
Yup. Mathematicians gushing about clouds and implying they have made science obsolete need to have that branded on their butts then be sent back to the mathematics department. They've already done quite enough giving us string theory (look! its internally consistent! it sounds cool! ergo its real!)
What makes you think they are not? Most researchers into nanotubes (and there are some in my department) when asked what the applications of their work are will mention space elevators first. There are few other applications that require such ridiculously strong materials - steel suffices for pretty much everything people want to build right now.
NASA has already run competitions to build elevator climbers. There are millions (perhaps billions) being invested in the development of carbon nanotubes as a viable building material. If such time, energy and money were being spent on building a warp drive, then you might have a point.
Given the way ISPs are being strongarmed
on
Real Snail Mail
·
· Score: 1
I think this is probably the safest way to torrent in the UK these days
Well, he is a fellow physicist and was telling me about it whilst writing a sourced essay on the matter (we are required to write essays about random shit to prove we are literate on my course; there isn't any call for writing physics essays really). He has no qualifications aside from having a six-pack whilst being a nerdy scientists , which means he must at least know something about nutrition.
Essentially it is down to the fact your liver simply isn't set up to handle that much fructose in such a short space of time. I can't remember the exact explanation well enough to recite it without making mistakes, but essentially your metabolism gets backed up trying to process the stuff and regardless of any activity you do after consuming it most of it gets turned into fat.
You aren't diminishing your quality of life by not consuming kamikaze quantities of sugar. Many of the things that shorten your life don't actually add to the quality of it (smoking is a big example). Judging by your tone, you are quite young; you've probably not had time to properly contemplate your later years. Sure we all die, but its a question of what your quality of life is towards the end.
Judeo-Christian value system? Is that you Bill O'Reilly?
If I keep hearing about these Judeo-Christian values I am force to abide by despite being an atheist, I am going to start smacking the crap out of some Judeo-Christians.
Deserves some modding. HFCS is a stealthy killer - the ninja of public health problems. I had a friend whos a health nut explain what happens when the stuff passed through your liver, and I've sworn off soft drinks since then. To my dismay, I've found it in loads of other things too (Pizzas? WTF?)
IANAL but I think an oath can function as a verbal contract. If someones taken the scientific oath, and then in the course of their employment they start, oh I don't know, pushing creationism - then the employer can fire them with impunity because they essentially misled them to get the job in the first place.
I've considered putting around my physics department a 'statement of principles' - basically saying that physical phenomena can only be explained properly through the scientific method and spiritual matters have no bearing on them. Then publishing for future employees of our graduates a list of who did and did not sign it.
Unforntunately, you've just mixed a feeling with a page containing actual data. I copied the full table into a spreadsheet (copy the page source rather than the page itself, works a lot better) and found the mean score given by Edge is about 6.5, the median score is 7, and the variance is a little over 2.
Yeah, there are some 10s and a 1 in there, but the 10s are quite predictable (all had piles of reviewer-lubricating cash behind their promotion) and the one is, well, a special case.
I think you need to take your head our your arse and look at the aggressive wars and coups executed by the Republican party. Your partisan idiocy is just retarded.
In the UK, if you get 68% in your final year exams at university you get an upper second class degree, and might be able to talk your way up to a first. So 68% is a masters/PhD candidates mark at most places.
Game ratings are ludicrous in that they use perhaps the top 40% of the scale. Not since the days of Amiga Power have I seen a dire game get a single digit % score.
Blithly associating democrats and what must be a seriously warped concept of socialism, with information control betrays your deeply held ideological beliefs. Put down atlas shrugged, look at the fucking real world and understand that providing medicine and education to the poor doesn't lead to totalitarianism, and that people intent on not doing that are quite capable of controlling information as well.
Most people wouldn't kick up such a stink if their country were excluded. They would be mildly annoyed, rather than accusing the person who made the list of being an outright racist.
I think they are more pissed off that Palestine was included. Yeah, its a loaded political statement - but the problem is that it is a loaded political statement that recognizes the existence of people that Zionists would rather we all forgot about.
A lot of people are refusing knighthoods, because association with our tired, old absurd Imperial rituals is more of a detriment than a benefit to someone who is already famous in their own right.
The people who tend to accept them are the ones whose careers are on the slide anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not talking about laying down fibre optic broadband. I am talking about anything which can provide a means to get information out. In Burma, it was mobile phones.
I don't have an exact technical solution in mind, but it isn't outside the realms of possibility. The military set up very advanced communication networks swiftly in hostile situations. Why can't the same techniques be used in peacetime?
Yes, deploying such things would hit the same problems as deploying food and water - but the advantage being that the more you deployed it the easier it would get, as it would get easier to send in everything else that was needed.
Civilians in areas requiring aid could, if they were connected, report the movement of warlords (and as often, government troops) that might interrupt food shipments. Having lines of communication could also provide a way of verifying the contents of packages.
But nobody said that here, so your whole point is a strawman. I think its safe to assume that nobody on /. thinks correlation!=causation because that would make all science impossible.
OK, I'm going to go completely outside the box for a moment and risk getting mocked for this, but what the hell...
What if we did get people without food and clean water online?
There is enough clean water for everyone. There is enough food for everyone. It isn't getting to the people that need it for various reasons; corruption, war, market failures. The common thread in these is a lack of correct information; corruption involves people deliberately misrepresenting information, war makes it dangerous to collect information, and market failures are normally trigged by bad information.
Areas where people starve are normally pretty opaque to information and that makes it harder to help people. If we were to give people in these areas better means of communication might it help allocate resources to solving the problems of food, water etc? It would be similar to how mobile phones were used to let the world know what was happening in Burma not long ago. Better information means better action.
Wrong - imply has a very specific meaning to mathematicians and scientists. 'A implies B' means that if A is true, B MUST be true also.
And can back up this rebuttal with a practical example. I am a physicist, I know sod all about blood samples, or proteins, or cancer. I get a pile of mass spec data (about a billion data points or so on some days) and through binning, background subtraction, and a string of other statistical witchcraft I produce a set of peaks labeled according to intensity and significance.
This does not make me a cancer researcher. This data has to go back to the cancer guys and they have to pick out the Biomarkers and thus develop new diagnostic tests, based on principles that I don't understand. I am master of the information but entirely blind as far as the science is concerned. Same goes for google.
Yup. Mathematicians gushing about clouds and implying they have made science obsolete need to have that branded on their butts then be sent back to the mathematics department. They've already done quite enough giving us string theory (look! its internally consistent! it sounds cool! ergo its real!)
What makes you think they are not? Most researchers into nanotubes (and there are some in my department) when asked what the applications of their work are will mention space elevators first. There are few other applications that require such ridiculously strong materials - steel suffices for pretty much everything people want to build right now.
NASA has already run competitions to build elevator climbers. There are millions (perhaps billions) being invested in the development of carbon nanotubes as a viable building material. If such time, energy and money were being spent on building a warp drive, then you might have a point.
I think this is probably the safest way to torrent in the UK these days
Well, he is a fellow physicist and was telling me about it whilst writing a sourced essay on the matter (we are required to write essays about random shit to prove we are literate on my course; there isn't any call for writing physics essays really). He has no qualifications aside from having a six-pack whilst being a nerdy scientists , which means he must at least know something about nutrition.
Essentially it is down to the fact your liver simply isn't set up to handle that much fructose in such a short space of time. I can't remember the exact explanation well enough to recite it without making mistakes, but essentially your metabolism gets backed up trying to process the stuff and regardless of any activity you do after consuming it most of it gets turned into fat.
You aren't diminishing your quality of life by not consuming kamikaze quantities of sugar. Many of the things that shorten your life don't actually add to the quality of it (smoking is a big example). Judging by your tone, you are quite young; you've probably not had time to properly contemplate your later years. Sure we all die, but its a question of what your quality of life is towards the end.
Judeo-Christian value system? Is that you Bill O'Reilly?
If I keep hearing about these Judeo-Christian values I am force to abide by despite being an atheist, I am going to start smacking the crap out of some Judeo-Christians.
Deserves some modding. HFCS is a stealthy killer - the ninja of public health problems. I had a friend whos a health nut explain what happens when the stuff passed through your liver, and I've sworn off soft drinks since then. To my dismay, I've found it in loads of other things too (Pizzas? WTF?)
IANAL but I think an oath can function as a verbal contract. If someones taken the scientific oath, and then in the course of their employment they start, oh I don't know, pushing creationism - then the employer can fire them with impunity because they essentially misled them to get the job in the first place.
I've considered putting around my physics department a 'statement of principles' - basically saying that physical phenomena can only be explained properly through the scientific method and spiritual matters have no bearing on them. Then publishing for future employees of our graduates a list of who did and did not sign it.
Unforntunately, you've just mixed a feeling with a page containing actual data. I copied the full table into a spreadsheet (copy the page source rather than the page itself, works a lot better) and found the mean score given by Edge is about 6.5, the median score is 7, and the variance is a little over 2.
Yeah, there are some 10s and a 1 in there, but the 10s are quite predictable (all had piles of reviewer-lubricating cash behind their promotion) and the one is, well, a special case.
Yeah, but in US colleges you get 65% for writing your name without drooling on the paper.
I think you need to take your head our your arse and look at the aggressive wars and coups executed by the Republican party. Your partisan idiocy is just retarded.
From my experience, Physics and Computer Science are much the same.
In the UK, if you get 68% in your final year exams at university you get an upper second class degree, and might be able to talk your way up to a first. So 68% is a masters/PhD candidates mark at most places.
Game ratings are ludicrous in that they use perhaps the top 40% of the scale. Not since the days of Amiga Power have I seen a dire game get a single digit % score.
Blithly associating democrats and what must be a seriously warped concept of socialism, with information control betrays your deeply held ideological beliefs. Put down atlas shrugged, look at the fucking real world and understand that providing medicine and education to the poor doesn't lead to totalitarianism, and that people intent on not doing that are quite capable of controlling information as well.
Seriously though, who gets so worked up by the differences between US presidential candidates? They are so slight they are almost imperceptible.
Most people wouldn't kick up such a stink if their country were excluded. They would be mildly annoyed, rather than accusing the person who made the list of being an outright racist. I think they are more pissed off that Palestine was included. Yeah, its a loaded political statement - but the problem is that it is a loaded political statement that recognizes the existence of people that Zionists would rather we all forgot about.
A lot of people are refusing knighthoods, because association with our tired, old absurd Imperial rituals is more of a detriment than a benefit to someone who is already famous in their own right.
The people who tend to accept them are the ones whose careers are on the slide anyway.