Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:"pioneer inventor of new technology" ??? (Score 2, Insightful) 162

by clovis (#48675291) Attached to: Bill Gates Sponsoring Palladium-Based LENR Technology

TFA calls Gates a pioneer. Well, the covered wagon part is right. Please name something of value that was invented by Gates himself. Give up? Ok, without looking it up.... name something of real scientific or technological value invented by Microsoft Research Labs. That lab allowed Gates to take enormous tax write-offs but never produced any scientific or tecnological break-throughs. But hey, it was all in good tax-dodging fun, right?

Or, you could look up the definition of the word "pioneer".
Here you go: "among the first or earliest to enter a new field of inquiry, Enterprise, or progress."
Bill Gates and Microsoft clearly meets that definition regarding the personal computer

+ - Take that, commies! "The Interview" will be showing in Atlanta.->

Submitted by clovis
clovis (4684) writes "It's not over until it's over ...
The Plaza Theater in Atlanta will be showing "The Interview" this Christmas.
http://www.ajc.com/
or
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/b...
movie/njY7w/

This is the Plaza's web site — they've not updated their page, but show times are in the tweets:
http://plazaatlanta.com/"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Everything you need o know in one paragraph (Score 1) 323

by clovis (#48652951) Attached to: Putting Time Out In Time Out: The Science of Discipline

From the linked article:

I’m reminded of a case study that describes an individual who had come to associate sexual arousal with being covered in insects. As a child, that individual had been locked into closets for unimaginable amounts of time, and during those times, bugs would frequently fill the space and crawl on him. The child, trying to seek some sort of escape from the reality of his experience, found comfort only in sexual release—even though he was too young to even know what sex was or meant. His body knew only that it felt good, and it provided the only possible escape available to him.

This is everything you need to know to raise a really interesting child.

Comment: Amazon was being dumb (Score 4, Informative) 291

by clovis (#48652243) Attached to: Amazon "Suppresses" Book With Too Many Hyphens

Looks like Amazon was being dumb.
The problem was not too many hyphens, but rather that there were no hyphens. He had used the minus sign and that breaks some text-speech readers.
Graeme has already fixed it.

This is Graeme's blog telling the story, the problem, and the fix.
https://graemereynolds.wordpre...

Comment: Re:ridiculously bad summary (Score 1) 281

by clovis (#48650045) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash...

You've never driven in heavy stop-n-go traffic on the freeway in SoCal then. I have seen cars so smashed you could not tell what the make or model of the vehicle was; sadly I saw a fatality just this summer, a mother and her kids on I-5; people just don't realize that drivers will slow and change lanes to take the exit at Camp Pendleton Traffic will back up there all the way up to the freeway lane.

Not sure why you want to believe that a rear-end accident is nothing to worry about.

Good point - I didn't mean to suggest that rear end crashes are nothing to worry about - Indeed they can be serious. Whiplash is the cause of thousands of paralyzed people every year. I was only pointing out the relative frequency of serious injury in my experience comparing rear-enders to t-bones.

FWIW, I have driven SoCal traffic and it does indeed sux. My previous employer put me in a West Covina motel to commute almost into L.A. for 1-2 months every year for many years.
I commuted across Atlanta for several years as well. Comparing the two, I find that Atlanta has a much higher level of ass-holeitude on the Interstates than L.A area, but, and I can't say why, I think the Valley's traffic is more unpleasant. Maybe I'm comparing a-holes to morons.

Comment: Re:Tiny Island (Score 1) 114

by clovis (#48648591) Attached to: Cuba Says the Internet Now a Priority

It is a tiny island. The solution is 4G wireless everywhere and 4G to wifi ports as public endpoints. There will have to be fiber to the towers, but that is a whole bunch simpler if the build-out is done in a grid pattern. Since Cuba is a dictatorship, they can get permits for anything! Someone will have to build a fiber line to Cuba and where it comes from is the political nit.

Cuba is larger than Hungary, or Austria, or Portugal, or Ireland to name a few.

I say give them Comcast! If they don't all hate us now, then they soon will.

Comment: ridiculously bad summary (Score 3, Interesting) 281

by clovis (#48644545) Attached to: Study: Red Light Cameras Don't Improve Safety

"[W]hile right angle crash incidents have been reduced, rear-end crashes that resulted in injuries went up 22 percent." Chicago officials recently claimed that the cameras led to a 47% reduction "T-bone" injury crashes, using that statistic as evidence that the program is worthwhile. But the study's authors, who "accounted for declining accident rates in recent years as well as other confounding factors, found cameras reduced right-angle crashes that caused injuries by just 15 percent."

So the article says rear-end went up 22% and T-bone went down 47%. You have to be suspicious whenever you see a news article that says x went down by y%.
per cent of what? What were the base numbers?

Here's some example situations to show why I say that.

suppose before red light camera we had 100 rear-end crashes and 10,000 t-bone crashes at the intersection (all with injuries)
suppose after red light, we have 122 rear-end crashes and 5,300 t-bone crashes. That's 22% rear-end up and 47% t-bone down
But, the total number of injuries dropped 4,678. That's good isn't it? Redlight cameras must be great!

Or, suppose this:
before red-light camera, 10,000 rear-end and 100 t-bone w/injury
after red-light camera: 12,200 rear-end and 53 t-bone w/injury again, 22% increase in rear-end and 46% decrease in t-bone.
so we had an increase of 2,153 injuries total. Oh my, red-light cameras are killers, aren't they?

I used a wide disparity in the numbers to make my point: you cannot make a useful comparison between percent changes in numbers of two different measurements without knowing the base numbers. That is covered in your freshman "Lying with Statistics 101" class.

So, I read the article in the Tribune (it's free if you give them your email address and live out-of-zone)
If you read the Tribune article (and the accompanied "How the Red Light Camera Study was Done" you may come away with a quite different view than the slashdot summary or the ArsTechnica summary. The Tribune article is not as ridiculous as the slashdot summary.

The article does indeed have some raw numbers:
Quoted from the Tribune:
"In raw numbers at the 90 intersections included in the study, the researchers concluded the cameras prevented as many as 76 right-angle crashes and caused about 54 more rear-end injury crashes. The study said that without the red light cameras about 501 angle crashes would have occurred and only 425 were reported. It also said that there were 296 rear-end injury crashes, and there would have been only 242 had the cameras never been installed."

I've been driving for a few decades and have seen many serious injuries and fatalities, but not a single serious injury or corpse in a rear-end crash.
If you give me a choice between trading 76 t-bones crashes for 54 rear-end crashes, I'd take those numbers. As many other posters have observed, t-bone crashes are much more likely to result in serious injuries and deaths than rear-enders.

The two Tribune articles also covers some of the crookedness associated with Chicago's use of the cameras. They are both a good read and covers a lot of why you should be careful about these numbers and problems associated with the data.

Comment: Re:What does this mean...? (Score 1) 56

by clovis (#48639735) Attached to: Scientists Discover That Exercise Changes Your DNA

Probably not,
I may be wrong, ( and please correct me if I'm wrong ) but the spermatogonium you start out with duplicate themselves through your life and the only mutations come from copy errors during the mitosis and meosis stages; toxic chemicals, radiation and so on.

I don't believe the methylation of DNA in muscle (or any other) cells can migrate to the spermatogonium. Nor can any other DNA change that occurs elsewhere in the body migrate into the reproductive cells.

Comment: Re:So, correlation CAN mean causation? (Score 1) 137

There can't be causation without correlation.

That is an interesting statement. I would love to see some proof of that.

Wouldn't a one-shot event with a delayed consequence have causation without correlation?
I speculate that there can't be correlation between non-repeating, non-simultaneous events.

You are correct, it is possible to have a causal relationship that does not result in a correlation.
This occurs if the consequence of the cause has a mediating factor occurring before the consequence, and the mediating factor varies in some way that is not dependent upon the causal action.
Here's a simplified example:
There are causes that make stock market prices vary, but the direction of the price depends upon how the information regarding the event is presented.
Falling oil prices cause oil company share prices to vary, but whether they rise or fall depends upon how the news media presents the cause and expected outcome - something that may depend upon political factors (Let's punish Russia!), or whether it is presented as "the sky is falling" or "buy opportunity" which may be influenced by the news reporting advertiser's needs.

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 1051

by clovis (#48587989) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

I recognize that vaccinations save tens of thousands of lives every year: 100 deaths prevented from chicken pox; 400-500 deaths from measles; 1,000 from polio; over 15,000 from diphtheria. And let's not forget the millions of others who suffered from these diseases without dying. Without a doubt, vaccines have been one of the most brilliant inventions that have made an incredible positive improvement to the quality of life in our society.

But our body is our own. Period. We cannot cross this line. If someone conscientiously objects to a treatment, it is their natural right to decline it.

And if we violate this tenant even in the name of vaccinations, it can be violated any other way "for the greater good." And that's a very, very dangerous precedent to make.

I quit agree. vaccinations should be voluntary.
And those people who don't want to participate in a civilized modern society can move to Africa or someplace where you won't be imposed upon by these rules..
I know it sounds like the "love it or leave it" trope from the 60's, but I'm serious. If people want to have the benefits of a modern society, then they should participate in it or leave. We already have enough parasites of all kinds.

When you make your mark in the world, watch out for guys with erasers. -- The Wall Street Journal

Working...