Slashdot Mirror

The article you reference does not demonstrate any side effects.

However, it is a valid concern, in that in vitro CRISPR/CAS9 and CRISPR/CPF1 edits has historically hit identical palindromic sequences that happened to be outside the target edit area, since the palindromes in question are only 24 or so base pairs in length. You have to expect that there will be other instances elsewhere in the genome.

If you read the article, the experiment was conducted on pluripotent stem cells created from skin cells taken from the patient, and done in vitro.

The eventual hope in this case is implantation of the in vitro stem cells in order to correct the defect.

This means that any side effects can be avoid by separating the edited cells into individual cells, and then culturing each batch to the point some of the batch can be taken and fully sequenced to verify that the only change in the gene sequences relative to the (fully sequenced) parent organisms genome, is the target gene sequence alone. This would be done before implantation, which would guarantee that the gene sequence causing the disease was the only one impacted by the therapy.

Practically speaking, we have AAVV/AAV-2 techniques -- utilizing Adeno-associated virus vectors, in other words -- that tend to be much more accurate. This is the type of vector that was utilized by the CEO of BioViva, Elizabeth "Liz" Parrish:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

No fucking way. Normally I would agree that posting links to TMZ is stupid, but not this time. Take a look at this follow up video of Shkreli calling TMZ up because they "dissed" him. That video alone has boosted my respect for TMZ up to at least existence.

The man is a maggot and deserves all of the negative publicity.

When it comes to TMZ here is a youtube link https://www.youtube.com/watch?... to the video to avoid the ad snake pit that is the TMZ web site.

I foresee problems using this proposed truck for towing. One of the things that makes the Model S successful is it's form. It has very low aerodynamic drag, and a somewhat fixed mass. Towing a trailer completely disrupts that system. Mass will increase dramatically, and most trailers have the aerodynamics of a brick.

The Model X seems to do okay at towing; I don't know why a purpose-built vehicle would be any worse.

I just realized a striking similarity between Richard Stallman and Donald Trump: both periodically like to get attention by making outrageous statements. If Trump wants to take it to the next level, though, he should attend the next Republican debate, put his money where his mouth is, and enjoy a tasty little snack.

tic-tac-toe is trivial to solve (I did so as a child -- there aren't very many moves) and, yes, the first player wins. Every time. Unless they're you, I guess.

The only winning move is not to play...

Please watch wargames scene...

Oh wait, you're serious, let me laugh even harder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

As I said, my point was sustained. Any moron can just dig his heels in when he was proven wrong and gainsay what the opposition is saying.

This is not an argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Don't bother responding unless you're prepared to either drop your FUCKING STUPID position and carry on with another argument... or unless you're willing to admit you were wrong. Either way. If neither... then this is the end, twit.

I was going to say "this energy level will of course also destroy this planet by collapsing it into an ultra dense particle about the size of a pea, but you will die knowing the true mass of the final building block of nature", but just didn't take the time to look up the quote then. I would also hope they would never actually pull cables out during operations; that's just common sense. They might, however, have to extend the two-month downtime a bit longer for this special project. The radioactive dust however really reminds me of Decay, which was actually shot on CERN property.

Using well known and solid techniques along with vast computing power, Google has finally broken into the majors of Go. The next question is whether a home computer can run the neural network now that it's been trained;.. or do the CPU and RAM requirements still place this level of play into the corporate-only bracket.

Once we can run our own purpose-designed expert systems on commodity hardware, that's when the social change AI will bring will be nigh. Whether it's beneficial to everyone, to just the 1%, or whether everything goes tits-up I have no clue. But we aren't there yet, because things like this are still hugely expensive to train and operate. A government can make a single person fly with a jetpack, but that has had zero impact on our daily lives. Social change rarely occurs until revolutionary capabilities are available to the masses (or at least the small business owners).

You can add a stabilisation system to an RC plane or heli these days. Or you can fly a quadcopter with auto-level turned off, which is quite similar to flying a heli.

The best FPV quadcopter pilots have some serious skills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I think this is what OP was referring to.

I mean, if even Spock can use it, I guess it's good.

So how does orbital mechanics work with a flat earth? Or do flat earthers also deny that we have satellites orbiting in space?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Subliminal rickrolls?

[never gonna give you up...]

Not 5 centuries ...

The earth has been known to be round for at least 22 centuries.

Eratosthenes, proved it by measuring the circumference of the earth around 240 BC.

Actually, Neil DeGrasse Tyson's predecessor, Carl Sagan explains it very well in this Cosmos video .

I'm sure there is. I don't know what it is, though, I mostly just listen to a little Twenty-One Pilots for the lulz.

Another obligatory rap reference.

Obligatory rap reference.

..or did they. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Indeed, there are some great examples of real stunts that people assume are special effects:

Tobey Maguire catches prop food on a tray in Spider-Man
Zoe Bell cuts a baseball in half in Kill Bill, Vol. 1
Sigourney Weaver makes a basket over her shoulder in Alien Resurrection

Indeed, there are some great examples of real stunts that people assume are special effects:

Tobey Maguire catches prop food on a tray in Spider-Man
Zoe Bell cuts a baseball in half in Kill Bill, Vol. 1
Sigourney Weaver makes a basket over her shoulder in Alien Resurrection

Indeed, there are some great examples of real stunts that people assume are special effects:

Tobey Maguire catches prop food on a tray in Spider-Man
Zoe Bell cuts a baseball in half in Kill Bill, Vol. 1
Sigourney Weaver makes a basket over her shoulder in Alien Resurrection

Sure... why not?.

Well...looks like we got ourselves a reader!

I do not think that any sane person questions landing itself. The world, including arch-competitors Soviets, were monitoring and spying the process. Moreover, the landing vehicle at the first landing location has been photographed. You can't fake the fact of that kind of magnitude.

However there is a reasonable suspicion that the footage of the landing is .... well... a bit of a stretch, and those pesky conspiracy theorists brought dozens of details that did not make sense. Lastly, there is this Stanley Kubrick confession on being the producer of the footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Perhaps the moon landing was real, however the famous video footage was made here at earth.

In nowadays these type sharp-eyed people post their analysis under the "Movie mistakes".

I came here to post the same thing... except that instead of sub-space sci-fi... I was going with mother nature... like your compass spinning when standing at magnetic north, I suspect they will stumble upon a method of extracting a minute amount of energy from the environment, and due to their lack of scientific understanding they will attribute it to perpetual motion rather than simple energy balance accounting. Then some scientist will come along and explain it in a few minutes and the "inventor" will be all sad because science crapped on their idea.

The bottom line is they spend years tinkering with an idea, that a scientist armed with a little math and chemistry can debunk in a matter of minutes... leaving the rest of the time to do real science.

I have heard of a examples where the scientist experts said something was impossible. And if something is not possible in physics then people who have the knowledge will not be so stupid to waste their time on it. Except sometimes the experts are wrong. The Frazier lens is an example of such a thing. Everybody who knew the physics about light and lenses said it was not possible to get a lens with near infinite depth of field. The guy didn't listen to them and spent 10 years tinkering with lenses in his garage before coming up with the Frazier lens and it is amazing. I'm glad he wasn't a scientist who would have debunked the whole idea before even starting on it.

Now the descriptions of the lens state how it is just a so and so and fits the physics just fine. I think the physicists have updated their worldview to accept the new discovery already. And that is not the only example of this sort I have heard of, just the one I can think of right now.

There has never been a representation of a living being done in CGI that looks real, no matter how much time and money they put into it.

Maybe not 100% yet, but we are getting really close !

While not a specific height low flying is usually prosecuted as reckless operation.

It's not correct to say "usually" unless you mean by low flying really really low. The regulations are pretty clear about minimum altitudes for helicopters. Whether the pilot can be prosecuted would depend on things like whether he is flying a multiengine helicopter that can fly away after an engine failure, or operates a single engine helicopter in such a manner that he can safely perform an autorotation if required. Also keep in mind that the entire minimum safe altitude regulation is prefaced with "Except when necessary for takeoff or landing"... so it's really intended more as minimums for en-route.

I would probably state it as: "While no specific altitude is mentioned for helicopters, a pilot who flies so low as to create a hazard to persons or property on the ground could possibly be prosecuted for reckless flying".

Whether or not a particular altitude is considered safe probably differs a lot between the helicopter community and the populace at large. Over lightly populated areas 500 feet is often a safe enroute altitude for a single engine helicopter. Over densely populated areas (like city centers) it might require a couple thousand feet, depending on whether there are open areas to land in event of an engine failure. Multiengine helicopters are given a lot more latitude and are often operated at very low altitudes over populated areas. I think in general people underestimate a helicopter's ability to be precisely landed in autorotation when flown by a competent pilot. There are plenty of videos on YouTube (including one of mine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ) that demonstrate precision autorotations.

I really think that noise is a much bigger concern, but people probably think they'll get more response to a safety concern. There is a lot a helicopter pilot can do about noise, unfortunately there are quite a few who are not really all that concerned about how their noise is perceived. HAI tries to raise awareness on this subject, and I know a lot of pilots who try really hard to minimize the impact their helicopter noise has on others.

As for the subject of who controls where you can land, it depends on the state. Most (all?) states have a state aeronautics department/commission which controls this, and which may or may not allow local government to have a say. It is definitely not true that only the FAA can say where you can/can not land. Just ask the helicopter pilots in New Jersey... Here in Massachusetts it is possible for the local government to work with the state aeronautics commission to make more restrictive rules about landing within a particular town.

> Overuse of CGI and unrealistic camera movements are turning live-action movies into live-action cartoons.

This. I wish directors would understand that just because you can zoom around a digital model at high speed, doesn't mean you should.

I'm thinking in particular of shots like this one from Serenity at 2:24, which just screams "fake!"

In the United States Democrat (which generally means left) is socialist too - they just - with the exception of Bernie Sanders - avoid using the word socialism to describe their policies do to the backlash involved with that particular taboo. There's deep-seeded anti-socialism ideas here, which are being successfully dodged for the most part with word games due to the general lack of attention given to political things and real education versus test passing training in the general populace.

Here's a recent stumble from Hillary, there's older ones that are just as bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

The Communist Party USA generally and endorses Obama, even declining to submit their own candidate since they felt the base was covered: http://cpusa.org/

In truth the Republican party is somewhat socialist also, where the Democrats focus on "vote cattle" by using corrupt versions of social capitalistic cronyism to make low income people dependent on the system, Republicans manipulate people (including those in my own family) making a different version of vote cattle that uses corporate welfare to keep the companies they work for unrealistically profitable. They both do the same basic things, Democrats tend to focus on the under/unemployed, Republicans focus on the employed.

you answered a question I did not ask. And you are continuing to dodge.

Wow. Is lying the only way that you can make your point? Here is your question:

And how would you react if I let your kids play with my drill press unsupervised?

And here is my answer:

I would not let my kids play at your house.

So, YES, I answered your question. Duh!

No, he didn't. The college can frown on it all they like but he did not break any rules.

Once again, LYING. The student who carried a weapon could get expelled for carrying. This is in their rules.

Oregon Community College. Postal shootings.

Here is the PRESIDENT OF THAT COLLEGE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A NO GUNS ON CAMPUS POLICY. If you can't believe the person who RUNS the college, then who will you believe?

Sorry, post offices are officially "gun free" zones. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...

Not really. It means more shots fired, broader group of potential victims, and confusion about who the police shoot.

So, you would rather take a CHANCE at getting accidentally hit rather than a CERTAINTY of taking a bullet to the head. Well, you choice, but not the one that I would make. However, how dare you force your stupid decisions on me?
And as to police, they warn you before they shoot. If you put your gun down, you will be OK. Let the police arrest EVERYBODY carrying a gun and sort it out later. Better to be arrested than dead.

Going by that logic you can avoid having an unwanted child by not purchasing a mini-van

You apparently do not know what "logic" means. Please explain that one.

Ah, reality. Here's reality: Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the school up in Oregon were shot up by actual students attending there.

And here is MORE reality. The victims were DISARMED, so nobody could stop the bad guy until good guys showed up -- with guns.

Now, I am still waiting for you to list the mass shootings in the last 20 years that are NOT in gun free zones. And, no, just saying that a place is gun free does not make it so when I can produce firm evidence to the contrary.

Anyways, this has been fun, but I am getting tired of refuting lies. It is just too easy and not much fun. Please at least make it challenging for me to prove you to be a liar. Be more clever! It is more fun that way.

it is Rick solid

So it's never gonna give you up?

Airplanes aren't as bad as you think. I'm not sure about commercial jets, but prop planes don't really care if one or both engines are out, as long as the plane has the air speed it needs for maneuvers. I've had a couple of one-engine-out landings on twin-engine skydiving planes. We weren't able to complete our climb to altitude, but we were able to go around and land on the runway just fine. It's a little dicier on a single engine plane, but losing an engine very rarely kills the pilot and pretty frequently doesn't even break the plane. (Admittedly the guy flying the plane in that video is one of the most exceptional pilots aviation has ever seen.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Stingray!

Fitzcarraldo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Agreed.

Here's a pretty good youtube video on how much CGI there is in films we don't tend to think of as CGI.

Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't) by RocketJump Film School

People tend to get mad about CGI only when they notice it.

Also, many of the CGI movies people dislike just weren't very good movies.

When well used, CGI and practical effects are mixed and melded.

Case in point: mad max fury road, lauded for its practical effects (as seen in linked video above).

Agreed.

Here's a pretty good youtube video on how much CGI there is in films we don't tend to think of as CGI.

Why CG Sucks (Except It Doesn't) by RocketJump Film School

People tend to get mad about CGI only when they notice it.

Also, many of the CGI movies people dislike just weren't very good movies.

When well used, CGI and practical effects are mixed and melded.

Case in point: mad max fury road, lauded for its practical effects (as seen in linked video above).

Maybe never "all on its own" but with a massively reduced number of people required.

It used to require a lot of people with shovels.

Then it required fewer people with bull dozers.

The big earth movers are already moving to semi-autonomous. Next step is a single 'drone' operator in AC working on the stuff that needs a human to do while a few other dozen in the fleet manage themselves automatically.

http://www.cat.com/en_US/artic...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

... sending out through deliberate action on their part, then you simply have poor choice in friends ...

So they should be on my black-list, like those friends who send restaurant food photos and airport selfies? How many of us do that? More important, how many of those photos are captioned "brought to you by Amazon"? (Change corporation name as needed.) You have a point but the sad truth is, we're not going to punish our friends for being corporate shills and narcissists.

Most people complain how Amazon and other online shops demand we buy product X immediately after buying product X. Now they'll demand our money because a Facebook friend bought product X. I can't imagine anyone enjoying that. That may provide the very means of punishing corporate shills. In the meantime we have to deal with unwanted advertizing in our personal communiques. I'll give an example.

Miley Cyrus wore strap-on breasts and a strap-on dildo for her performances. Such things can be bought from Amazon? I don't want Amazon telling me to buy a sex toy because a Facebook friend did. That's a narcissistic friend and a selfish vendor using my friend for profit. I have more reason to punish the vendor than my friend and there's fewer consequences punishing the vendor than my friend.

We have no problem giving toy guns to boys and thus teaching them to kill. Why is 'warfare' for children, encouraged? Parents happily buy the same pretend weapon someone else bought. How many parents would buy a breast-feeding doll because someone else did? Why are bottle-feeding dolls encouraged when bottle-feeding a real baby isn't?

And if they discover something that might lead to a new electrical generator, it will take 30 years to get to market and be tightly controlled by industry. You've in no way convinced me that the hobbyists are wasting their time. They have completely different goals than the people at the LHC.

Calling them monkeys just makes them sound cute. In Asian art, the monkey is often a symbol of fighting for the moral good. Like the monkey and the tiger, they have different goals. The monkey doesn't need to be philosophically concerned that the tiger doesn't understand his needs.

Normally I hate video links, but in this case I'll give you a link to a video of a monkey and a tiger, discussing a related issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

It might be better to say that particular directors are better at striking a balance between traditional and modern filmmaking. They know what bits look best filmed for real and which bits should be done later in a computer. J J Abrams can afford to build an external millenium falcon set (used about 4 times in the movie) but he still digitally sticks in the surroundings every time they run up and down the ramp.

School is more than just learning facts and figures. It's a lot of socialization with as many different types of people as possible. This is the kind of person you create when you sequester kids in private schools and this is what they become in the real world (naive and weak victims):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Here's a short youtube showing the effects in Automata. The robots were a combination of real robots and puppeteers. The puppeteers were in green suits and removed by standard green screen subtraction. In breif moments where their arms move in a complex way the arms were CGI added to the puppet robot chasis without arms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...