Forgot your password?

Comment: Heh (Score 1) 11

by Captain Splendid (#46467357) Attached to: Couple Weeks With A Mac
Here are some of the issues so far. Installing software sucks. It comes in different file formats and how it gets done varies wildly based on where I get it from. It's confusing as all get out. Without a package manager I guess updates will be on a per software basis and apparently uninstalling means removing the program and then hunting down any bits it leaves behind. That's pretty idiotic.

As it ever was, as it ever shall be. Probably the most infuriating thing about the Apple philosophy, and shocking that it's a holdover from the classic days.

I had a hard core Mac guy try to explain to me why this was better.

How cute. Would love to know what crap he came up with.

Comment: Re:in related news (Score 1) 76

by Daniel Dvorkin (#46442439) Attached to: The NSA Has an Advice Columnist

Participation in fraud and selling stolen goods is hardly capitalism. ... Maybe you should look into the theory of capitalism a bit and this time read past the title and forward of the books.

Maybe you should look at how things work in the real world instead of believing what a bunch of philosophers tell you they think ought to happen. Hint: Karl Marx and Ayn Rand both developed economic theories that were entirely logical and self-consistent.

Comment: Re:Creativity vs. Being a Crank (Score 2) 118

Yes. This is an important distinction. "They also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Hoyle wasn't purely a crank, of course. He was a very good scientist, who had made major contributions to his field, but who just couldn't accept new ideas past a certain point, and thereby became a crank. This phenomenon isn't universal by any means, but it's sadly common.

Comment: Re:Poster should consider going back to the clinic (Score 3, Informative) 64

by Daniel Dvorkin (#46433243) Attached to: Genomic Medicine, Finally

The actual benefits from pharmacogenetic testing for Warfarin metabolism are swamped by all the other factors which affect Warfarin metabolism (eg diet and other meds).

The FDA disagrees, and so does the evidence. And there are a whole lot of areas where pharmacogenetics is starting to have an impact on treatment. In any case, pharmacogenetics is a subset of pharmacogenomics; for example, as I mentioned in another comment, the lab where I work is working on expression-based tests for prediction of altitude sickness and setting up drug trials.

Comment: Re:Regulatory hurdles (Score 4, Insightful) 64

by Daniel Dvorkin (#46433203) Attached to: Genomic Medicine, Finally

The clinical trials framework that's evolved over the decades isn't really equipped to deal with personalized medicine, but that's starting to change. Where I work, we're starting to understand the genomic basis of altitude sickness and putting together treatment trials on that basis. This is an area where the potential market is pretty large, of course, and for rare diseases that affect small numbers of people it's going to be harder, but if we can develop a generally accepted body of protocols for individualized trials then it should be possible to apply this to smaller groups as time goes by.

+ - "Genomic medicine, finally"

Submitted by Daniel Dvorkin


Comment: Statistical analysis of craters (Score 4, Interesting) 135

by Daniel Dvorkin (#46431625) Attached to: Dinosaurs Done In By... Dark Matter?

I understand why they're getting a weak signal here on Earth, where most craters will have long since been erased by erosion and surface remodeling. But I'll bet we could get a much stronger signal from the Moon, particularly the far side. Do we have the ability to get dates for craters there from orbiting probes, or is that something we'd have to collect physical samples to do?

Comment: Re: i interpret it to mean (Score 4, Informative) 497

by Daniel Dvorkin (#46430137) Attached to: Can Science Ever Be "Settled?"

Theromes do exist but always with a defined set of starting axioms and therefore a theorome when applied to the physical world becomes a theory.

Theorems and theories are two different things. You're quite right, that proving a theorem requires a well-defined set of axioms; the natural world, unfortunately, doesn't provide us with such axioms*, which is why we have to use theories to describe it.

*Well, maybe. "The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" argues that maybe there is some axiomatic Truth at the basis of reality. But if so, we have no idea what it is yet, and anyone who tells you they know is lying.
