13-Year-Old Finds Fungus Deadly To AIDS Patients Growing On Trees
Since when is collecting samples and cataloging them not hard science? Not particularly difficult, but most definitely hard science.
It is part of hard science, but it's the technician part. The scientist part is figuring out what problem to address, thinking of hypotheses to test, designing a methodology to test the hypotheses, and then executing the experiment and analyzing the gathered data.
Finding a kid who has executed some scientific project is not rare. However, finding a kid who has done that without having the problem set up or at least directly motivated by a mentor (often a parent) is rare. Furthermore, it's even more rare to find a kid who has finished the experiment without resources provided by that mentor, often resources that are not readily available to most kids.
Sources Say Amazon Will Soon Be Targeting Ads, a la Google AdWords
The idea that regular people will curate the advertising data used to profile them is a huge non-starter.
Somehow the geekboy bias of slashdot thinks it's a great idea to make the effort to do Amazon's or Google's job of making targeted ads non-annoying. For normal people, configuring ads on Amazon's behalf is obviously annoying and is obviously a non-starter.
Of course, the real solution is not to do Amazon's job for them. The real solution is to block ads. No, the websites won't go away. Corporations are hooked on money and will find another way to stay in business.
Email Is Not Going Anywhere
Right, because people understand and care about that.
So much that they've flocked by the billions to closed, centralized platforms.
People may not necessarily understand or consciously care for open platforms, but they at least subconsciously cling to it. Of those that have flocked to closed messaging systems, how many have given up email? How many of us know even a single person that has given up email?
Giant Greek Tomb Discovered
Pro-metric folks talk about the ease of metric conversions, but that's mostly useless. Few calculations are of the shift the decimal place around. Rather, most calculations require more arithmetic than most people can comfortably handle without paper or a calculator.
But, even more important, the most relevant aspect of using either any system of measurement, be it metric or English, is gut feelings. That's what used daily over and over again. I have a gut feel for how big 100 miles, 1 gallon, 160 lbs, etc. are, but I have to do the conversion from metric quantities to understand metric units. I can do the conversions, and I understand the math, but it's the intuitive understanding of the quantities that is useful. It is this one quality of measurement systems that allows the English system to continue to flourish despite its mathematical limitations.
Apple's Diversity Numbers: 70% Male, 55% White
From Wikipedia, "Of the 43,000 Apple employees in the United States 30,000 work at Apple Stores." Because of this, none of Apple's numbers are comparable to other tech companies. What would be interesting to see is the breakdown for the 13,000 non-store employees. Non-tech vs. tech is not a valid point of comparison unless other tech companies provide numbers using the same criteria, since it's not always entirely obvious who is tech vs. non-tech.
Of course, the real questions are (1) whether the aggregate statistics are of any use to represent current fairness or to drive future policy and (2) if and to what extent specific individuals are disadvantaged due to certain demographic characteristics. I think the aggregate statistics are useless because target numbers do not exist. Sure, the media and CEOs happily decry the current numbers, but then they cowardly balk at stating what the desired targets are. Also, they try to portray that their sense of "fairness" may be focused on individuals, but they selectively pick and choose which individuals are worthy of fairness and which are not. It may be true that it's not fair that a certain black woman doesn't have a tech job, but does the fact that lots of other white men have tech jobs make it any more fair that a specific white man doesn't have a tech job?
China Bans iPad, MacBook Pro, Other Apple Products For Government Use
Long run (maybe, even near-long-term) this does not bode well for China's prospects, because when one is sealed off from outside ideas and innovation, one will ultimately fall behind and adapt only in suboptimal ways. What results is a waste of social and intellectual capital.
China is only refusing to buy some foreign products. There is no policy of isolation. I imagine there will still be a great deal of reverse engineering and other data gathering activities (interpret that how you wish). So, the idea is to negatively impact competitors financially while at the same time benefiting from their innovations.
How One School District Handled Rolling Out 20,000 iPads
Yes, the kids love them and yes, they probably do have educational value...
Actually, the question of educational value is the big elephant in the room. It is completely questionable and absolutely not obvious that these tablets have educational value. Do the kids learn more, faster, or in different ways? Can this be quantified or even vaguely estimated? There are huge IT capital and operational costs involved, and such large expenditures must be justified in terms of return.
It's telling that the article and even the discussion on Slashdot centers on technical questions because those issues are all tangential. If the main goals focus on avoiding the theft of machines and the bypass of parental controls, then the entire project is misguided. How are the children learning, and how does that learning compare to the previous system of learning? What did the $20 million buy?
Ask Slashdot: How Many Employees Does Microsoft Really Need?
Unfortunately, these MS employees are likely to be unceremoniously dumped with minimal chance of re-employment.
It depends. It could very well be that the main reason for this mass layoff is not that Microsoft carries more deadweight than another company, say Google or Apple, for example. Many of Google's employees are not necessary, but it can afford to pay them due to its money spigot. Financial metrics, such as operating profit or more importantly projected stock price appreciation, quickly turn non-deadweight employees into deadweight. It's obvious that Microsoft (or any other company) does not execute layoffs in response to an appraisal of the quality or necessarily even the usefulness of employees but rather the financial implications of the cost centers that these employees represent.
People Who Claim To Worry About Climate Change Don't Cut Energy Use
I've never made any concerted effort for "environmental reasons," but I do notice that I don't use nearly as much energy as most people do, which is a side effect of how cheap I am.
Yes, energy usage moderation is a matter of economics and not religion. Rich people with big houses use lot of energy regardless of their views on the environment. Similarly poor people tend to try their best to minimize their energy usage, not because they necessarily care about the environment but because that is what they can afford. This is what I've seen in my life from my experience as part of the bottom 10% as well as the top 5%.
Elite Group of Researchers Rule Scientific Publishing
Academic publishing would be a much fairer process of reviews would be truly double blind, and if there were a severe penalty for breaking the rules. In the absence of that, people win Nobel prizes and will continue to do so. But that's because those people are outliers, not because the system is sane.
Outstanding papers for the most part will continue to be published. That's not the issue. The problem is that the overwhelming portion of submitted papers are not seminal papers, and it's these papers that are subjected to the defects in the review process, including the following:
(1) Not all reviewers are equally competent for their assigned papers.
(2) Not all reviewers are equally committed to spending the minimum amount of time needed for a thorough review. I have seen reviews submitted by well-known and regarded individuals that were obviously hastily written with a cursory reading of the submission.
(3) The assignment of papers to reviewers is mostly random. Explicit conflicts are filtered, but the assignment is mostly random, even if some sort of bidding process is used, as is done for some conferences.
(4) The number of reviewers is often minimal. For journals, often two reviewers are used. For conferences, 2-5 reviewers may be involved. However, that number includes the less competent and apathetic reviewers.
(5) Decisions are often swayed by a few very opinionated individuals. Especially on a PC, it is not at all rare to see political motivations determine the fate of a paper.
Double-blind reviews are idealistic but not practical. For many/most papers, it's almost trivial to figure out who the authors are based on the title, the subject material, and the references. Most authors will self-reference their own papers.
Slashdot Asks: Do You Want a Smart Watch?
Fourteen years ago I carried a phone and a PDA. The PDA had wifi, office apps, games, etc., and when needed I could use the phone as a data modem. I eventually migrated to a single device with both phone and PDA functionality, and I've gotten used to the convenience of a single device with the same functionality. I would not want to go backwards in time to once again carrying two devices for the same functionality.
I consider bio-sensors to be gimicky. I imagine most of the people who would find those sensors to be a positive have already bought existing sensor devices.
Using a watch as a convenient but significantly crippled interface to a phone seems like a huge step backwards. I would only accept that huge loss of interface functionality if I could leave the phone behind, i.e., if the phone migrated to the watch. Now, that is something that I would buy in an instant. Anything else is just Pebble++, even if it happens to have a fruit logo on it.
How Google Map Hackers Can Destroy a Business
Fifteen years ago, you opened the yellow pages for the same information. Did you say then, who controls this book? Did you worry about all the power being in the hands of a single phone company?
Likely not, and for two reasons. If the phone company abused it, they'd lose the trust and goodwill that makes the very product valuable, and if it was no longer accurate someone else would come alone and make an accurate version.
Why is that not the same for Google? If their maps become unreliable, won't people move to Bing? If not, why not?
The problem with "hacking" is the openness and crowd sourcing aspect of Google Maps. Wikipedia has the same problem, and the answer was to decrease the openness for editing. Maybe Google will have to adopt a similar strategic decrease in openness for certain parts of Maps.
Will people move to an alternative if Google Maps becomes unreliable? Well, maybe but probably not. If I'm misdirected to a competitor but I'm still able to complete my transaction, then I probably don't care or maybe I don't even realize the misdirection. If a small percentage of the links I click on fail, but most links continue to work and the rest of Maps functionality remains intact, then I won't switch. The losers are not the browser users but the businesses trying to get free advertising. I imagine Google will take care of paid advertising businesses, but they probably don't care as much for the "freeloaders", i.e., Google wants the freeloaders to populate their database, but they don't really care if they benefit or are hurt.
Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo
One interesting study would be the correlation between the characteristics of the hiring manager and team members. In my experience the correlation is strong, especially in terms of race and ethnicity. At Bell Labs in the 90's, one out of the three research area organizations had a very high representation of Indian managers and researchers. At Sun, the same was true except that most managers and researchers were white (Americans, Europeans, Australians, etc.). I worked at another company where the manager was Serbian and two other researchers were Serbian.
This is a hypothesis that can be fairly easily corroborated with statistical studies. I'm fairly certain that the bias exists. Of course, whether that bias is good or bad is a separate question.
Human Language Is Biased Towards Happiness, Say Computational Linguists
Two questions about this research:
(1) How did the researchers account for operational language profiles? Language A may have more negative words than positive words, but maybe the one happy word is used 80% of the time. To me, the incidence of positive vs. negative usage is much more important than the histogram of the available vocabulary.
(2) How did the researchers compare the same word in different languages? Is this comparison possible without the introduction of bias in the selection of words for each of the two languages. From the paper authors' website, "This is a comparison between the average user reported happiness scores between several languages. The "happiness" of each word is rated by 50 distinct users on a scale of 1(sad) to 9 (happy). Words from each row language are then translated into each column language and intersected with each other corpora."
So, how much are the results a reflection of the experimenter's biases and skills in translation to the 2nd language. I'm suspicious of this type of comparison. From the article (not the paper), "For example, on a scale of 1 to 9 with nine being the happiest, Germans rate the word “gift” as 3.54. That’s slightly negative. By contrast, English speakers rate “gift” as strongly positive at 7.72." As a somewhat fluent German speaker, I know that the German word "gift" means poison, and I would consider it not just slightly negative but extremely negative. If the experimenters actually presented the German speakers with the German translation of the English word "gift", e.g., something like "Geschenk", then I imagine the German response would have been very positive.
Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks
Some people many find it offensive because it sounds like an offensive word. However, that does not make their offence legitimate.
Now, if people started to get cute and "niggardly blacks" came into common usage as an euphemism for the notorious N-word it could become offensive, but that would be based on the facts around the usage and not the feelings of a black person.
The problem is with the concept of a "legitimate" offense, as though some quintessential characteristic of an action or statement should outlaw personal feelings. How one feels is reality. For those of who are married, try telling your wife that she shouldn't feel offended because you didn't mean to hurt her, so that should make her feel better.
This entire discussion of "legitimate" offenses boils down to whether one cares about what others feels. If I care about the listener and that listener feels offended, then I would address their feelings, regardless of my personal feelings about the offense. If I don't care about the listener, then I either ignore the listener, or if I feel the sting of societal condemnation, I attack the "legitimacy" of the offense or the morality or intelligence of the listener.
Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks
The person it's deriding gets to decide if it's offensive. That's kind of how it works. The white guy doesn't get to decide if Nigger is a bad word. The white guy doesn't get to decide if Chink is a bad word. The white guy doesn't get to decide if Redskin is a bad word. Etc etc etc... This is plain common sense, and everyone arguing against it is an ass.
I completely disagree. It's common sense that the person using the word decides if it's offensive. If someone says "negro" referring to the color of a couch, it's not offensive even if a black person takes offense at it. If a child calls the black paymates he adores "niggers" because that's the only word he's ever known for them, that's not offensive. His black friends may request that he use a different word because they take offense at the term, but the child meant no offense by using the word and it'd be a serious miscarriage of justice for him to be chastised for using the word.
It's much more nuanced than that. There's this incorrect aggregation of the notion of offense, as though something is either offensive to everyone or offensive to no one. A speaker can offend without intention to offend. It should be obvious that each individual is the only person who has not only the right but the ability to determine personally felt offense. The right and ability to determine offense for oneself should not be confused with the legal or moral right to determine the resulting societal actions.
That is, each person gets to decide if the term "redskin" is personally offensive. However, just because one or more people take offense doesn't necessarily grant that group or society as a whole to impose sanctions for that offense. But, likewise, the lack of societal sanction should not be extended to prohibit personal feelings or thoughts. In fact, in my opinion, hearing "You have no right to be offended!" is much more hurtful than the original offense.
Yahoo's Diversity Record Is Almost As Bad As Google's
Making any comments about the desirability or appropriateness of the percentage of women, blacks, hispanics, etc. in a company implies personal knowledge about the desired or appropriate range of percentages. But, that's where it gets difficult. It's easy to say that the numbers are too low, but it's hard to pin down what the target numbers should be. Should the percentage of women be 50%? But, if there are 10x more men applying for the job, is that appropriate? As others have discussed in this forum, a separate question is whether the 10:1 ratio of men:women applicants is appropriate.
This discussion also presents perhaps a hazy melding of two distinct, important questions: (1) Are there an appropriate percentage of a certain demographic group within a company, and (2) do the members of that demographic group have the same opportunities to get a job in that company? The first question deals with the aggregate end result, while the latter question deals with the probabilities for an individual. In my opinion, the second question is more important but difficult to measure. So, the first question is used as a lazy alternative.
Endurance Experiment Writes One Petabyte To Six Consumer SSDs
A few years ago, Google published a study of hard disk failures. Failures were not correlated with how much data was written or read. Failures were correlated with the amount of time the disk was spun up, so you should idle a drive not in active use. Failures were negatively correlated with temperature: drives kept cooler were MORE likely to fail.
Actually the paper says that the Google guys approximated power-on hours with a notion of age, which I assume was approximated by a knowledge of either the manufacture date of the delivery date. From the paper, annualized failure rate (AFR) is somewhat correlated with age, but not necessarily strongly enough to predict probability of failure. Even with their large drive population, the paper points out that the drive model mix is not consistent over time and therefore, not much can be made of the apparently weak correlation between AFR and age, which could be perhaps be more greatly influenced by drive model.
The negative correlation with very cold temperatures is interesting but hard to understand without further analysis. Perhaps some drive models didn't handle fly height adjustments well at low temperatures. It's hard to figure out without more data. It should also be pointed out the temperatures were obtained via SMART, and the SMART standard doesn't mandate how temperature is reported. So, different manufacturers could report temperatures in different ways, i.e., different locations (which can easily vary by up to 30 degrees C), different aggregation methods (time windows, sampling frequency), etc. So, the aggregate data is probably not as useful as the data per drive model.
Driver Study: People Want Fewer Embedded Apps, Just Essentials That Work Easily
Nobody needs a $4000 in-car navigation when their $400 phone already does the same thing better.
I actually prefer the built-in system. For example, I have a limited data plan because my non-wifi data needs are low, so using an online map like Google Maps or Waze costs extra on a recurring basis. With a phone, I would have to go through the motions of removing it from my pocket, attaching it to the bracket, and plugging it in, as well as the reverse motions when leaving the car. I would also need a special bracket to hold the phone, and even with this bracket, the screen would shake more than an integrated system. The phone screen is significantly smaller. The phone audio is not integrated into the car speakers, so audio levels have to be adjusted, and navigation directions sometimes compete with music. The built-in system also has a physical joystick and dial with voice feedback (not to mention voice recognition) so that I can control it more easily than the using the phone's touchscreen.
I do use my phone for navigation sometimes when I drive my older car. But, given a choice, I always prefer the built-in system.
Crucial Launches MX100 SSD At Well Under 50 Cents Per GiB
The goal of the upgrade was an easy performance upgrade, i.e., pop it in and enjoy the speed.
What my experience shows is that DRAM costs less, yields a better performance increase, and most importantly is plug-and-play. Obviously, different machines and operational workloads will affect results, but if SSD performance is not plug-and-play, the value proposition for many users is greatly diminished.