regeland

4 ms·

1.
by regeland 8y ago
Disclaimer - I was subscriber 7454 to FB, however I moved on and never used it. I'm a little surprised that the EFF didn't mention the proprietary nature of FB in the article. The EFF used to champion open standards... what has
2.
by regeland 9y ago
What I loved about usenet as the author described was that the "barriers to entry" were pretty high. Because only researchers or highly technically competent people could generally gain access, the quality of discussion was reall
3.
by regeland 9y ago
Wow small world. I remember having a similar conversation with George Church circa 2000. Fun times and his vision has come to pass. Great guy.
4.
by regeland 10y ago
It was actually not science that the original ban was based on. Who knows whether the new EPA chief is basing the reversal on science or politics, but the end effect is probably a better policy than throwing bans around on chemicals that h
5.
by regeland 10y ago
Exactly. You mean NYT has a headline that is not fact checked? :-)
6.
by regeland 10y ago
It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective
7.
by regeland 11y ago
The search for yield... a predicted consequence of 7 years of zero percent interest rates. Last time around it was investors seeking yields in low-quality mortgages. This time, they're investing in low-quality Silicon Valley startups
8.
by regeland 11y ago
A IV drip regulator "changes how medical devices are made?" Hardly an example to compete with pacemakers, stimulators, orthopedic implants, biologics, endovascular devices, laproscopic surgery, electromagnetic navigation, CT and
9.
by regeland 11y ago
Absolutely. The taxi cab industry is example number one for regulatory capture. The foolish talk about "employee rights" for Uber drivers makes no sense. The market will determine the rate for labor of any types, Uber drivers incl
10.
by regeland 11y ago
Completely. And the claim that "this doesn't impact wifi bandwidth" completely violates the laws of physics. As if the 2.4GHz band isn't junk enough already with noise. And nor is this novel. Tesla did a large public