Interesting Links for 12-04-2015

[andrewducker]

• VeinViewer Means No More Poking People Relentlessly to Locate Veins
  (tags: blood technology viafanf )
• Lib Dems propose Digital Bill of Rights to protect personal data online
  (tags: privacy libdem politics uk )
• Exposing female engineering students to more female peers increases motivation, participation, and aspiration
  (tags: Women engineering

Comments

[fanf]

Since you posted that link about French vs American aesthetics, I have had a tab full of blue floral penises, just to remind me to share. http://www.lookhuman.com/design/48268-floral-penis-pattern

[andrewducker]

Worth having a pillow covered in it too see how long it takes people to notice.

[threegoldfish]

I bought a set for my mom. It took her a really long time to notice. (and then she was delighted)

[gonzo21]

As somebody who thinks the UK should have a nuclear deterrent, but quite strongly anti-trident. There's not really any need for a submarine based delivery system anymore.

A land-based nuclear deterrent would be cheaper. Arguably not safer, but it's only not safer in the event of an all out blanket first-strike by the Russians, in which case, I really don't care if our retaliatory strike gets off the ground or not, we're all dead anyway.

So yeah. Scrap trident, retain the nuclear deterrent in the form of cruise missiles or guided bombs in two or three secure bunkers throughout the country. That way the North Koreans know that if they every explode a dirty bomb on a ship on the Thames, there is a deterrant that will make them regret it.

[gonzo21]

(And the reason I'm in favour of the nuclear deterrent is the horrific data coming from climate scientists lately, which point towards a 3-4 billion die-off of humanity sometime in the next century, which means we are inevitably going to be embroiled in terrible wars for resources. And the nuclear deterrent could well be something we'd very much regret not having anymore if we get rid of it now.)

[rhythmaning]

Dogs detecting cancer: I wonder what the rate of false positives was.

And I can't help thinking exposing dogs to so much human urine is just - well, taking the piss...

[andrewducker]

http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347%2814%2904573-X/abstract

Accuracy is the positive rate, specificity is the negative rate. So false negatives were between 1.3 and 2.4%. Too high for comfort, but if they can use this study to work out what the dogs are detecting then they can hopefully get those numbers lower.

[rhythmaning]

Ah - thank you!

[kalimac]

Well, I hope print newspapers don't disappear during my time, because I read the newspaper while eating breakfast, and I recently learned that using a touchscreen while eating wet fruit (like cherries or an apple) with your hands is a really bad idea.

[skington]

Assuming for a moment that the amazing advanced technology knowns as the napkin is somehow unavailable, isn't it more unpleasant to have your paper slowly turn into papier maché as the stains on one page ooze into the pages below? Whereas touch screens are glass that's designed to be easy to wipe clean.

[kalimac]

The so-called "amazing advanced technology known as the napkin" is entirely insufficient for cleaning the juice off the hands enough to let the fingers use the touchscreen. Does your high condescension fail to account for the overwhelming likelihood that I tried this?

Whereas it is sufficient to keep the newspaper from crumbling into wet sopp.

And the problem is not that the touchscreen gets wet juice spots on it, it's the response of the sensitive touchscreen to them. Touch the screen with even napkin-wiped cherry-eating fingers, and the sensors go bananas! Jumping, leaping around, enlarging and reducing, going to linked pages, going back. I had to turn the machine entirely off and then wash both my hands and the screen thoroughly before it worked right again.

[kalimac]

The article on law firms' briefs on same-sex marriage is amazingly bigoted against same-sex marriage, more openly so than I'd expect from the NY Times.

It speaks of the difficulty of finding elite lawyers who are willing to be "standing up for traditional marriage."

But nobody is opposed to traditional marriage. Nobody! I'm certainly not; I have one myself. The argument is over whether that's to be the only kind of marriage.

The ability of the bigots here to get away with calling themselves "defenders of traditional marriage," as if traditional marriage were under attack, is rhetorical thuggery.

Then it says there's been bullying of those "who support religious liberty." "Religious liberty" to do what? To tell other people what kind of marriages they can have! That's the bullying. Stopping bullying is not itself bullying.

[brixtonbrood]

I agree. The NYT might have had a viable point about the impressive but perhaps slightly scary power of the gay rights lobby to influence - by comparison with the relative lack of power of the victims of Big Tobacco for example. But they showed their hand far too plainly by their choice of terminology. Once they'd said "defence of traditional marriage" they'd lost not only the open minded pro-gay-marriage reader, but probably all the neutrals as well (if there are any neutrals left by this point).