Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.
More if you search for it.
Um, hello? They were selling nice (and very effective) RFID blocking wallets and passport holders there for $20.
The cost is $0.02 for the aluminum foil, and $19.98 in overhead?
While you are right that using these methods for realtime key generation could be predictable generating many when the data is rich is still a better than most approach.
With a Word document, you first need to *find* the document, and make sure you have the latest copy. The one on your hard drive might be 6 weeks out of date. The one in your e-mail folder for that project might be a week or two old, the one on the server a day or two old. There might be a copy your co-worker is editing right now.
Revision control software can help, but I've got an aversion to using CVS/SVN-style revision control for binary files. Yes, it can work, but the software was created for text, and you still need to let others know if you want to make changes, so they don't try to at the same time, or you'll have conflicts that can't be resolved since it's binary. And you need to have a local copy of the workspace just to get that one file. In my case, the svn client is on Linux/Sun machines, but I need to edit on a Windows PC. It's just a pain all around.
From that standpoint, wikis are so much easier. We use them to write up tutorials and theory-of-operation types of documents and the like. Too bad my company wants all official documentation (product specs, designs specs, etc.) to be in Word.
You have a control group (one type of food) and a variable group (the other type). The single independent variable is the difference between the two; in this case, the (binary-valued) variable is "organically grown". Nutritional value is an outcome; it isn't an independent variable. There is nothing in scientific methodology that says you can't measure multiple outcomes within the same study; you could measure nutritional value *and* toxic effects *and* effect on occurrence of antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains within a single study that has the same independent variable, if you have the resources and interest to do so.
Perhaps you were only trying to say that, since it was a meta-study, they were constrained by the nature of the previous studies in existence. That may be the case (or maybe not), but that's a resource constraint, not a methodological constraint. And the way your original statement was phrased has me convinced you were referring to method.
Alien observers must think we are building a metal sphere to hide behind.
They probably have one themselves already... to prevent global warming
No, he's new here.