Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Consistency (Score 1) 366

by cryptolemur (#48159027) Attached to: Scanning Embryos For Super-Intelligent Kids Is On the Horizon
Ahum, Stephen Hsu is a theoretical physicist, the breed that seems to think that everything else in science is a subset of their discipline and thus within their realm of understanding. Which is rarely the case.

Meanwhile, the genetic researchers have already started serious discussions about the fact that since we now can fix some defects already on the embryo level, should we? If you cull them, then that discussion will be controlled by hapless physicists...

Comment: Re:Not news: GWAS Often Fail (Score 2) 68

by cryptolemur (#48081485) Attached to: Nearly 700 Genetic Factors Found To Influence Human Adult Height
Talk about name dropping...:-)

I hope you're not thinking all these authors contributed equally. They did not. I'd venture a (well educated) guess that most of them "merely" had part of the data, and provided that in exhange for a name in publication. Most probably made their undergrads to do the analysis, so they could only share the results for meta analysis, instead of the raw data. So the the undergrads got their names in, too.

Furthermore, all the authors are using the same method (GWAS) so it's only relevant to question that single method, not the smartness off all the authors put together. And it's apparent that even you don't think much of the method, since you require those that challenge it, to come up with the proof (actual genetic/biological/chemical mechanism) that the method provided a correct model of reality. And within a generous week, which, of course, is much less time that it took to churn this statistical model out of the data.

That doens't sound fair, me thinks. It'll take years of wet lab to find out if this model has any relevance to how the world ticks. Computers and undergrads are cheap, labs and professionsal are expensive, so we get a lot of statistical biology nowadays. It's not bad science per se, but it's a very limited approach, because it's (totally) data driven.

Comment: Re:Union tactics (Score 4, Insightful) 121

I may be protectionism, or it may be serious consern for quality. Or both. You do know that the luddites didn't oppose machines, but machines that produced poor quality stuff -- they were afraid that people would be fooled to buy third grade crap instead good quality products.

Too bad they were beaten, shot and hanged for it, and we have the world we have now...

Comment: Re:Not me (Score 5, Insightful) 255

If we started to assume that business is not supposed to behave the most sosiopathic and misantropist way possible, the world might become a better place.

In other words, the bottom line is no excuse for anything. Not even in business. A creepy bastard is a creepy bastard, even if it's for profit.

Comment: Re: Ethics and Morals ? (Score 1) 165

by cryptolemur (#47025653) Attached to: US Navy Wants Smart Robots With Morals, Ethics
The objective of war is to impose your will on the others, not to kill people, since you can't impose anything on dead people.

You only care about body count, or spectacular victories ("let's put the fear of God to them"), when you don't know what you're imposing if anything, or to whom you're imposing it on. Then body count becomes the only measure of prgress that you can use. It's like your fighting a war either because you can, or because you don't know what else to do...

Besides, what made Red Army relatively easy picking for the Wehrmacht in 1941-42 was the very fact that it won it's two previous engagements (Khalkyn-Gol and Winter war), the first one spectacularly, which pretty much prevented any constructive critique or learning from mistakes and casualties.

Comment: Re:Why do these people always have something to hi (Score 5, Informative) 348

by cryptolemur (#46791133) Attached to: VA Supreme Court: Michael Mann Needn't Turn Over All His Email
That was his point, don't you think?
Wasting 30 seconds searching would have given you, or or ... and many, many more.

Funny thing, the code, the data, the explanations, everything has been avalable for years, and yet so many of the public believe they're not. I wonder why that is?

It's like there was this massive political campaign against science. Of which you just became part of. Congratulations!

Comment: Re:Won't work (Score 2) 342

by cryptolemur (#46684139) Attached to: Australia May 'Pause' Trades To Tackle High-Frequency Trading
I gather the best way to 'encourage' investors to aim for long term profits, would be to simply make the tax be absurdly high (like 99.9999%) for HTC and then converge it to normal according to the time one has held a particular stock before sale. This way you can always make profit (if there's profit to be made), but even the gambler would be interested in the long term health of the general economy, and of the business in particular they have invested in.

Overnight, we'd have a stable, healthy, growing economy.

Comment: Re:@people from the US (Score 1) 145

by cryptolemur (#46610331) Attached to: GCHQ and NSA Targeted World Leaders, Private German Companies
I assume BND has been collaborating with US intellicenge a lot. Now, of course, it appears that anybody in Germany having collaborated with NSA (and it's brethen) or GHCQ should be considered a traitor and be put on trial.

Really, every European Intelligence Agency should be purged from persons who advocate international cooperation. And purged such a way that several genrations of intelligence people will think twice about "exchanging information".

Of course, what remains of international terrorism will have (again) grrreat time operating globally, but trust is something we can not afford anymore.

Comment: Re:The term of art is "obvious." (Score 1) 406

by cryptolemur (#46462205) Attached to: Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents
There could be that others listened to the customers, who at the time did not think all-touchy device was an improvement -- it still isn't! -- but good ol' Steve came forth and sold the abomination to people.

For most purposes touchscreen is an inferior input device compared to almost anything. It's like using your computer only with several mice and claiming it's great experience... now, making it the only input device, one hardly can call that an advancement.

Comment: Re:Replication (Score 2) 197

by cryptolemur (#45257673) Attached to: How To Better Verify Scientific Research
The *best* way would be to do a different experiment with the expectation of getting the same results if the original research was valid and understanding of the studied phenomena good. Then, regardless of whether the second study validates the first one or not, we would actually have more data and better understanding of the issue and problems regarding it's study.

Invalidating shoddy research would be a bonus.

Do not simplify the design of a program if a way can be found to make it complex and wonderful.