Free unicorns all round.
The idiots will never realise they have been played.
45 posts • joined 22 Sep 2009
Cure (ISBN: 9780385348157) has a reference to a study where a nocebo was correlated with small doses of a toxic drug and was then sufficient to cause death when applied on its own (in animals). This is interesting since it implies the pathway doesn't depend on reasoning (as supported by placebos being effective even when the subject knows its a placebo)
You need to look at other cultures where engineering and computer science are as well respected as medicine. Or look at medicine in UK/US culture. Agree a 50/50 split isn't right, and a contributing factor is the challenges for men in teaching, but here there is still a huge cultural barrier for women with potential skills in there areas.
Having had the discussion, in a STEM club, about how a physics degree was relevant to an engineering job, I think there is a view being taught by both parents and teachers that GCSE/A-level choices are absolute pre-requisites for specific careers. This may work against the more generalist (and more demanding subjects) like maths, and also present a barrier to someone without an early CS qualification who might consider moving towards that field. Maybe girls select their career choices differently at the point where they start to choose subjects, or are reluctant to move away from their first subject choice at a later date.
Its worth noting that the gender bias only exists in certain cultures, and isn't particularly an issue of technical complexity in a career.
There is no shortage of stuff to burn, at least for the next 30-50 years. No need for compromise in order to conserve the stockpiles. What we do need to do is stop wasting money on pretending that the current technologies are worth a wide roll-out. More research, more fission (in the medium term), prepare for adaption.
Why focus on only one small aspect of the product? Are the other features present and correct? Does the game actually function? The kind of details that the majority of gamers will be interested in?
Yes, offline only is a valid issue for maybe a few hundred people (for various different reasons). Is it an important issue in the context of the whole release? How about a little research, and not just some quotes from a fairly busy forum...
This really does look like a step backwards compared with the (almost working) truesmart - being able to read and reply to massages from anywhere in the house or garden without carrying my phone all the time is a genuine benefit. Of course there is a simplicity and battery life tradeoff - tethered and notification only is much easier for the media to understand...
That will be one developer who hadn't thought to read up on zero trust then. Was this trading money, or was he confusing the exchange with a bank? Even my semi-legitimate share broker is fairly obviously not a bank and the nominee holdings I have with them are a fairly obvious risk exposure.
He who holds the private key holds the ability to destroy (or have stolen) the coin. A developer would, one might reasonably assume, know this. Ergo, you are not taking to a developer.
I think you chose not to understand what the developers said. It sounds like it is 100% MtGox's fault that MtGox paid some withdrawals twice, or have chosen to use this as a justification for closing outgoing transactions, or have attempted to manipulate the price. Developers admit it is not nice, and say everyone else has a working solution to the issue.
The risk from low level contamination is (at an individual level at least) pretty small, and thats even if you take the worst-case assumptions rather than the optimistic view that some radiation might even be beneficial. Far, far higher chance that you'll die in a road accident - so if you want to improve your chances, eat more fish and hope its good for the brain, and gives you better reaction times. Worrying about getting cancer in 39.5 years rather than 40 (my interpertation of the practical radiation risk) kind of misses the point.
The practice I think referred to here is buying a google search result for <abc> helpline, then promoting a number as if it were the standard 0845 number, but charging £1.5/min.
Presumably, the cost of paying for clicks is covered by the fools tricked into making the wrong choice of which number to dial.
These 'calculations' presumably rely on some fairly poorly tested models of what 6 months of exposure to a moderate level of radioactivity does to the human body. It's not clear to me that we have any reliable data in this area (airline pilots maybe being a good population to sample). With a 25% background level and many other environmental factors, +3% is bordering on difficult to measure without a large number of test subjects. I understand the experiment has only been done ONCE even on mice - about 50 years ago...
I bought a 64 GB card about 6 months ago. After 3 weeks, it died - completely un-usable even with low-level formatting using a linux box and a brand new uSD card reader. Returned within the 30 day period from Amazon.
Glad they finally got round to admitting it was a problem - I might risk buying another one now.
Training more drivers to be better at managing problems is likely to give far better returns than pretending the problems can be avoided. In the case of a phone call, the call should get the peripheral attention, not the driving activity - but this has to be instinctive for the driver.
It's not an easy sell, but learning accident avoidance skills does help. Sadly, most people in a not-fault accident don't realise that often they could have mitigated the scenario to some extent regardless of the actual fault.
Technology might be able to contribute too, but there does seem to be a trend to wards expecting drivers to be idiots and designing the car to cope...
Good. Someone concerned about short term accuracy of the data, and without much of an agenda to get any specific answer (other than one that matches the future). A case where the people making the projections will be around to see the results of their work too.
Models are necessary, but they're usually not quite right.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Finally, the Met Office is caught out making statements about trends which it is unable to substantiate with statistical analysis. Sadly, it isn't as simple as saying that they are wrong, and there is no trend. All we can say is that they seem not to realise how easy it is to pick out a trend by eye which is in reality just random variation.
The Met Office has a duty to present their analysis of the data in a robust way. The dialogue linked in the article implies that their senior staff have no comprehension of what would be needed to achieve this.
We do, however have plenty of examples of their PR being interpreted to swallow the inaccurate interpretation so it seems reasonable to push them to issue a clear and unambiguous retraction of the idea that we have a rainfall trend that suggests ANYTHING. (other than a long term 1% per century increase, which could well correlate with the LIA, but is close to irrelevant in terms of panic-now)
So they fabricate a target which they say we have to meet, then construct a model which says we're doomed anyway. By a large majority, the model runs are over estimating their temperature projections, yet we are still relying on these outdated and inaccurate models to guide policy.
It seems the best they can come up with now is a scenario where if we have lost, we've lost worse than before. Why not assume that maybe the worst-case isn't the right thing to plan for for a change?
EliteDangerous on Kickstarter is well on the way to meeting it's funding goal (£723,389, 57.9%).
Funding closes on 4th January (22 days to go), and at the current trend is looking like it will take an average pledge from most of the backers of £50 to meet the goal. This is by no means guaranteed, but there are some good videos from Frontir Developments now, and surely the message will spread over Christmas...
So we have a 0.67 K variation from the mean, very significant day-to-day fluctuations, a warming trend of something less than 2K/100yr, bucket/engine room variations at sea, UHI impacts on land due to massive population and land use changes - is this a big scary trend we see with a monthly maximum? No, not really.
What we can deduce from this rather muted trend is that the magic 'climate sensitivity' is much more likely to be at the low end of the guestimates, even if the models are assumed to be complete. The big claims of more extreme weather events have already fallen flat. We are rapidly reaching the point where 3 K by 2100 seems unlikely, let alone 5 K.
Things change. It's not necessarily a bad thing.
How do they manage to get 45 mpg from an engine tuned to run as a generator? My CRZ (with a feeble battery assist) manages 48-52 at 70 mph once it's warmed up (for a long run) and I'm underwhelmed by that for efficiency.
Seems like the numbers determined by the grid-charge procedure make the designers lazy. We need a 'litres/500km' or 'miles for 6 gallons and a full charge' metric. Something for the weekends where plug-in isn't convenient, a scenario which I guess is slightly more common that people guess.
I'm tempted by the idea of a small plug-in as an additional vehicle, but struggling to find a cost saving - seems the price book is written for people with eco-guilt issues.
Lets have some instrumental evidence for the oceans warming before getting too excited, shall we? Sea level rise is kind of missing too (but maybe more tricky to measure accurately).
Anyway, if the methane circulation is greater than we expected, maybe that means there is a methane sink which isn't properly accounted for too.
So long as my paying for a movie isn't directly linked to some patronising adverts trying to tell me I should have paid. I'm not sure it makes commercial sense to provide me with an incentive to learn how to rip stuff to side-step the idiot trap (and teach everyone else the same too).
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020