Forgot your password?

Comment: pulseox data on APRS (Score 1) 135

by k6mfw (#47965811) Attached to: My resting heart rate:

Occasionally I fire up my APRS unit (ArgentData Open Tracker 3 to radio on 144.39 MHz) which I have a Nonin pulseox sensor placed over the finger to measure heart rate and blood saturation levels (SpO2). Interesting to see the data while driving, varies from high 60s to 90s (calm easy traffic to the 'oh s---'). I need to take measurements while sitting at the desk (maybe see variations when reading journals to whining on the forums).

I learned about APRS and using pulseox from http://parachutemobile.wordpre...

One time I rigged up my unit during a ballroom dance private lesson, pulse varied from 80s to 120s. Later did same during a Zumba class, pulse rates in 140s and 160s. I used a T3-mini APRS unit to small HT at 250mW on 144.33 which I had a receiver with TNC to laptop at studio. The pulseox on my finger and cable taped along my arm first alarmed zumba instructor, she thought I had a heart condition of some sort. Last thing they need is someone collapsing in class from overdoing it. I explained I am in excellent shape, it was a part of geeky experimentation.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 265

by gstoddart (#47965795) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

The why is for now firmly in the realms of philosophy and religion.

But let's not go around claiming either of these things represents truth.

They start with the things science can't tell us, you're right.

But from there, nothing they say is provable.

So, when people say "philosophy and religion try to give us Truth", they're really saying "this is what I believe and you can't disprove it".

The why may merely be a function of the how ... it happened because physical laws more or less made it inevitable.

If you have an example of an astrophysics text book that states why the universe exists, please give us the reference.

Now, point us to an objectively verifiable source which can tell us why.

You can't.

Comment: Re:All this because Clang went Clunk? (Score 1) 132

by DerekLyons (#47965603) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Regular finance account reporting of how the money is being used should be required. If you can't handle it, don't ask for money.

Such production of reporting and auditing of reports has costs and could consume significant amount of project funds.

Nonsense. If it's a serious project, they should already have an accountant or at least some form of accounting software - once you have that, it's pretty simple to produce a basic cash flow report. Regardless of what your business is, tracking the financials is basic to it. If not just to know whether or not you can afford that widget or software package, because come the end of the year you have to let the IRS know. If the project doesn't have financial tracking, it's a sign to run - far and fast.

It should be up to the backers and an agreement with the backers made in advance, regarding what will be required, not up to some random third party to decide what reporting will be imposed on them both.

Kickstarter isn't a random third party. As the great-grandparent said, they're essentially assuming the role of the stock exchange - as the middleman and facilitator of the process. Thus they have an interest in seeing that the process is transparent and to some degree regulated. Even for private investment, sans the market, the SEC has rules separating investors into two classes based on their ability to determine and withstand risk. As the arbiter of the market, Kickstarter has similar motivations to protect investors.

Now this being Slashdot, there will be a chorus of people insisting we don't need a middleman or and arbiter... to which I say, go try and raise significant funds on your own sans such a middleman. Then you'll understand why a central marketplace with at least some level of consumer (investor) protection is an idea that has recurred throughout human history. It's a win-win situation for all parties. (And before you rant and froth about Wall Street - I'll point out the problems there are implementation and QA errors, not specification errors.)

Comment: Re:The article isn't any better. (Score 1) 265

by jellomizer (#47965365) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Science is a tool used by engineers. An important one.
However many things are engineered without science, but with intuition, instead.

I use to live in a 100+ year old house. The structure was ridiculously over done. 12x12 logs holing up the roof, The bricks were 5 layers deep. In essence it was engineered by someone without strong science knowledge. He just figured more is better. So it was over engineered because of lack of knowledge of the science.

Comment: Re:The article is more extreme than the summary (Score 1) 265

by gstoddart (#47965279) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

No, science is not the pursuit of Truth, that would be philosophy down the hall.

Well, the problem with anything seeking "Truth" is there is absolutely no objective way to measure it or know you have it.

Which means, this so-called "Truth" is nothing more than something people believe with no actual proof.

That, my friend, is not truth. It's faith.

So, any claim to some higher Truth boils down to someone saying "sounds good to me".

Philosophy and religion can come up with a lot of things they believe to be "The Truth". But, that doesn't make it so.

Comment: Re:Some details about the 3D printer (Score 1) 119

by DerekLyons (#47965243) Attached to: SpaceX Launches Supplies to ISS, Including Its First 3D Printer

Still, with mass at a premium it would be more efficient to send up a stockpile of raw plastic rather than many combinations of different spare parts.

For the relatively small fraction of parts that will break that are printable plastics - that's a great thing. (At least with anything resembling current technology.) For everything else, especially the electronics parts that will represent the greatest proportion of the failures... not so much.

Comment: Re:Science vs Faith (Score 1) 265

by gstoddart (#47965131) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

Why are we here? What is the purpose of life, the universe, and everything?

But why does there have to be a why?

The question pre-supposes an answer in which there is a why.

Slime evolved. That doesn't necessitate that there is some grand plan for everything.

In fact, assuming there is a meaning or a purpose is about as un-scientific as you can get.

What is your evidence for such a thing? Other than wanting to believe that, which isn't evidence of anything.

Comment: You can debate without taking a side (Score 1) 67

by sjbe (#47965083) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

If they're neutral, they wouldn't debate.

I debate things all the time that I have a neutral viewpoint on. Usually I do this to point out that there is another side to an argument that has some validity that the person I'm debating is not acknowledging. Sometimes I debate a topic to help figure out what I believe about a topic. Only an idiot takes a side in a debate without first trying to understand the relative merits of the different sides being debated. Having a debate where the goal is to poke and prod arguments rather than to convince the other side can be extremely useful.

Hell slashdot itself is pretty much clear evidence that you do not actually have to believe in a position to debate the issue at hand.

Comment: Re:Risk aversion (Score 1) 132

by gman003 (#47965011) Attached to: Kickstarter Lays Down New Rules For When a Project Fails

Often it's too little money for a loan.

I've backed several book printings. The content already existed. All they needed was to go through the proofing process and have enough cash to do a print run. The former, while time-consuming, is fairly low-risk. With Kickstarter's "no money taken until you meet the threshold" setup, the latter is also pretty guaranteed.

But despite it being a very low-risk proposition, banks don't really help with such a project. It's too little money - one had a minimum of $6000, and even the biggest was only $20K. Likewise, who wants to bring in VCs who will try to take over your business (if not just burn it for profit) for a small project?

Really, I think you're wrong in that you think VCs and banks are a good judge of whether a project will succeed. They really aren't, in many cases, particularly for niche fandoms. And they might also not be good for the business, since they inevitably take a large chunk of the profits for themselves. Some of the projects I've backed could easily have self-funded - but they used Kickstarter to make sure there was enough demand for it to be profitable.

I tend to treat Kickstarter as a sort of preorder system, with the caveat that I need some sort of proof that you actually know what you're doing before I will commit. Many of them have successfully done such things before. I kickstarted Exalted 3rd Edition, since the mere existence of two prior editions is a good indicator that they can make a third. I've kickstarted a few games from new creators that had fully playable prototypes (Superhot and Nothing To Hide). Those were riskier, but still a pretty acceptable risk.

I do, however, shy away from any Kickstarter project that will need additional funding - like Clang, which took all that money just to build something they could show to VCs. That's like paying an entrance fee to a casino - sure, you might still hit the jackpot but those are some pretty long odds.

Comment: Can't tell if it's Fox News or Rabid Progressives (Score 1) 265

by Overzeetop (#47964719) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

I started out thinking he was far right, bludgeoning the people who think they know science but are really just too stupid to know better because they're not really geniuses - Fox lives on making fun of the "intellectuals." Then he claims that true science is hard and that people are just animals that can't get past their lack of understanding of basic probability, which puts him soundly on the left end of MSNBC. Then he wraps up by seeming to dismiss everything and everyone for not being good enough in his personal world/religious/scientific view, which could really put him in either the far right or far left.

I think he's mostly a pedant and a language troll, so I guess he fits right in here at /.

Comment: WTF? (Score 1) 265

by gstoddart (#47964615) Attached to: How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything

This is how you get the phenomenon ... thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them.

WTF is this drivel?

This reads like a thinly veiled plug for religion.

Hell the article contains the word "philistines". Seriously, what the hell is this crap?

Comment: So-called Mainstream Media (Score 1) 67

by sjbe (#47964581) Attached to: Nobody's Neutral In Net Neutrality Debate

It is ludicrous that the mainstream media is only now getting a clue. This says much about the media in general.

No insult intended but I'm guessing you haven't had to deal with "mainstream media" much directly. I have on several occasions and let's just say that they were severely clueless. This sort of technical argument is WAY too subtle for them to deal with properly given that it isn't the sort of thing most people really care about or notice in their daily lives. They could do it but it requires too much effort and doesn't draw enough eyeballs. Furthermore a lot of them have some built in conflicts of interest. NBC is owned by Comcast. I very much doubt they are capable of being truly independent reporters on this issue.


How Our Botched Understanding of "Science" Ruins Everything 265

Posted by samzenpus
from the you-keep-using-that-word-I-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry writes at The Week, "If you ask most people what science is, they will give you an answer that looks a lot like Aristotelian 'science' — i.e., the exact opposite of what modern science actually is. Capital-S Science is the pursuit of capital-T Truth. And science is something that cannot possibly be understood by mere mortals. It delivers wonders. It has high priests. It has an ideology that must be obeyed. This leads us astray. ... Countless academic disciplines have been wrecked by professors' urges to look 'more scientific' by, like a cargo cult, adopting the externals of Baconian science (math, impenetrable jargon, peer-reviewed journals) without the substance and hoping it will produce better knowledge. ... This is how you get people asserting that 'science' commands this or that public policy decision, even though with very few exceptions, almost none of the policy options we as a polity have have been tested through experiment (or can be). People think that a study that uses statistical wizardry to show correlations between two things is 'scientific' because it uses high school math and was done by someone in a university building, except that, correctly speaking, it is not. ... This is how you get the phenomenon ... thinking science has made God irrelevant, even though, by definition, religion concerns the ultimate causes of things and, again, by definition, science cannot tell you about them. ... It also means that for all our bleating about 'science' we live in an astonishingly unscientific and anti-scientific society. We have plenty of anti-science people, but most of our 'pro-science' people are really pro-magic (and therefore anti-science). "

Save the whales. Collect the whole set.