I don't see how this is anywhere near as much of a failure as when Reagan showed his complete lack of understanding of Springsteen's Born in the USA, or when Paul Ryan did the same with We're not gonna take it, or Michele Bachmann with American Girl or Sarah Palin with Barracuda.
The real tragedy is that one of the four were elected.
Maybe other people feel they are on networks that deliver
innovative products and solid service
... but that certainly doesn't describe my experience of the past 7-8 years. If anything, my coverage has become worse where I live, and my carrier doesn't generally carry phone that I want (at least, not at prices I want to pay). In fact the only thing that seems innovative about my carrier is that they keep coming up with new "innovative" ways to pull more money out of me for the same shoddy product.
It is no surprise that dogs were the first domestic animals, they were more effective hunters than individual humans and humans could give dogs sources of food that they couldn't access on their own (notably bone marrow from cooked bones, though also various processed grains). We not only had the dog before we had the horse, the cow, the cat, any bird or any non-canine mammal, we had the dog before we had what some would consider to be civilization. Hence by extending the hunting ability of the human, the dog could be credited with helping to domesticate the human.
Also worth noting that some of the very earliest grave sites from humans had dogs buried along side the humans; the dogs were that important to the earliest humans.
Species do not make up their minds to evolve into X
You are right on that statement, however, the statement that wolves evolved into domestic dogs is not entirely true. For a population to fully evolve into a new species, the ability to of the new species to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with the original species must be lost. Domestic dogs can freely breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring, so they have not completely evolved into separate species.
My laptop hard drives average 1.5 years between failure. If an SSD drive dies in 5, that's a huge improvement.
And if you stop buying Seagate drives you'll see an even bigger improvement. I buy from the other large HD manufacturer and I average at least 3-4 years on my laptop drives with my laptops running on average at least 12-16 hours per day, year round. Generally I end up replacing them due to need for more storage space before I replace them due to failure; I still have a 30gb laptop PATA drive that works fine from 2004.
Seagate's QC has gone down the toilet in recent years anyways. Even worse, it is following their customer support down the drain. They should stop making the 7200rpm drives, then the 5400s, then the SSDs, then everything else and just go away.
It is brutally intolerably - and sometimes fatally - hot for at least 3 months of the year. It gets hit by hurricanes quite nearly every year. Alligators, Crocodiles, and giant Asian Pythons attack and eat everything in sight. Nobody can afford to own property and landlords are crooked. And now the land itself is caving in .
Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
You can always move to Canada or England if you think they are so much better
That is a very common statement, but why do I need to leave? Why can't I help change the system and then other people can leave? Why are you the one who deserves to stay?
On top of that, the people who say things like "why don't you just go leave and live in Canada or the UK" often have no idea how difficult it is to do that. I am a highly qualified worker but I need a job offer in one of those countries in order to move there - I can't just show up and declare myself to be living there. Conversely, the conservative free-market havens like Somalia and Afghanistan tend to require almost nothing in order to live there, so why don't you leave instead?
It always amazes me that liberals complain that conservatives want to run their life
Well considering how the conservatives in government are constantly impeding on my ability to live my life, I would say they are indeed telling me how to run my life.
it is the liberals who are demanding that everyone follows their rules
Single payer health care does not demand you follow any new rules. If every other industrialized country in the world is any example, it would actually result in you keeping more of your earned income than what you currently keep - and it will still allow you to die from preventable ailments if you choose to do so.
And when you don't agree with the liberal it goes right to name calling.
Considering they way you are already throwing around unsubstantiated assumptions I would say you have already gone to name calling.
Nationalised single payer with optional extra private coverage is demonstrably cheaper and has (on average) better outcomes. Anyone with half a brain would get behind establishing it in the US
You are absolutely correct on that.
Unfortunately you have missed the fact that such a thing is officially labeled as "uncontrollable, completely nutbar, crazy-ass Stalin-esque Hitler-loving Castro-backing communist socialist fascism!". So while it makes sense to a sensible person, the dominant conservative narrative here tells people that it is a terrible, terrible idea that should never enter the discussion. Even our allegedly "liberal" president took the idea off the table about 12 seconds into the first discussion.
In other words, the US will never stand for single payer. This is an enormous travesty but it will always be that way; single payer won't come to the country currently known as the USA.
Oh and while you are at it do something about malpractice tort reform - the major cause of excessive medical costs.
You do know the most common profession for legislators before being elected, right? The most common profession is lawyer. Malpractice suits are a huge revenue stream for attorneys all over this country, there is no way they will attack it, that would be like United Defense telling the Department of Defense that they don't see a need for a new kind of missile, warhead, or transporter.
Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now
The worst buzzword out there is, without a doubt, "Obamacare". This clusterfuck of an industry bailout bill has pretty well no resemblance to health care reform, or to any of what Obama actually wanted to do.
It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.
br?
That is also true about people who use the word "Obamacare".
NIH articles must become freely available, but they are not typeset in the format of the journal it was published in. It's not nearly as nice, but, the content is all there.
That approach varies from journal to journal. Some journals opt for the alt-typesetting as you describe, and others opt to just release the entire final article.
Why not just try to sequence enough geness, to have it multiplied with a DIY PCM machine, and create the super deadly flu,
For one, the flu has already been sequenced, so doing it again wouldn't be useful.
Second, the flu genome is RNA, and around 14,000 bases long which is beyond what many PCR thermocyclers can do reliably, even with the best enzymes available. In other words, you would need better molecular biology techniques to get it to work well. Even more so, older DNA sequencers topped out at reading ~800 bases so you'd have to do a ton of sequencing in order to make sure you got your flu genome right after making your desired changes to it.
Third, if you want to create the virus and make it useful you need to transfect it into something, as the flu can't replicate without a host. Hence if it is "super deadly" you need to be able to get it into a host without killing yourself - and on top of that you need to get it to a host that can transmit it to other living people since corpses don't tend to sneeze much.
If you don't have access to a way to purify your DNA for it, forget about it
you mean like ordering it online?
No, not like ordering online. How do you expect to order your own DNA online if you want to sequence one of your own genes? And if you're going to send some of your cells to someone to purify your DNA, you might as well pay them to sequence it for you as they will have access to better instrumentation that will do it faster, cheaper, and more accurately.
by not attempting to do it yourself
Booooooo. I would rather try learn and fail.
The problem is there isn't a whole lot to learn from doing this. Methods and instruments have changed dramatically. What you would learn from an old sequencer would not be useful for a new one because the methods and results are so dramatically different.
To put it into a computer analogy, it would be similar to trying to learn computer animation by purchasing an old SGI Octane (after all, they used SGIs for Jurassic Park!) and spending a ton of money on old IRIX software, only to then realize that nobody uses it any more and you would have been better off financially and time-wise to buy a powerful PC and learn Blender.
Hence if your goal is to learn the old method just to learn the old method, then go for it. Your results will likely be garbage and your chance of getting anything useful out of it are very slim (after all, someone did get rid of the old sequencer). If, on the other hand, you want to learn how it is done today, and get meaningful results, stay away from it and talk to someone with a sequencer from this decade.
... they are not nearly as straightforward to use as you might have imagined, even if you thought it would be difficult to use. If you don't have access to a way to purify your DNA for it, forget about it. Even if you could purify your DNA well, you would still need the supplies (primers, buffers, molecular-grade H2O, etc) to run the reactions and then the software to analyze the results. And then once you get one reaction to work you have to set up and run many many more to sequence even one important gene to a meaningful extent. That said, don't even dream of sequencing your entire genome at home with an older sequencer (or any other that you could afford on the kind of salary that a slashdot reader is paid).
If you want some of your own DNA sequenced, send it off and then throw a big crazy party with the time, money, and space you saved by not attempting to do it yourself.
Many PLoS ONE level impact journals are free to publish in, unless you want colour in the print version or blow through their page limits.
I'm not aware of any no-cost (for authors) journals - at least, none that accept life sciences papers. For that matter, PLoS ONE is already seeing impact factors around 4 or so, which to the best of my knowledge is the highest impact factor to date for an open access journal.
That said, some journals will allow authors from certain (member) institutions to publish for free, but someone has to pay that membership cost. I'm also not sure why you mention color or length - I have never seen an open access journal charge for color or length as they aren't doing a print journal anyways.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has required this for some time now. Interestingly enough once NIH made this mandatory, the for-profit journals found ways to comply on a per-article basis so that academics would still publish with them.
The important thing to consider about all this, though, is that the for-profit journals still get more readers than the open access ones. I am one of many who wish that this was not the case, but it simply is. Hence if you want your work to be read by the largest number of possible readers, and become incorporated into your field of work, you want to get it into the larger, more prestigious -and more expensive - journals.
That said, some of the open access journals - PLoS ONE being a great example - are catching up quickly and drawing lots of readers and with them lots of citations.
The only problem left is that the open access journals cost about as much for authors to publish as do the for-profit journals. I had a paper in PLoS ONE recently and we paid somewhere around $1,400 to publish. By comparison the journal a lot of our "higher impact" work goes to costs around $1,500 and even Nature is in the same ballpark (not that we publish in Nature). So if the open access journals with their lower impact scores can't attract authors with lower publishing costs they need to do it with promises of good exposure.
I can't figure out the identity of the third game, and it doesn't list a publisher. It mentions
Battle at high altitude is set in an archipelago: the player moves
his aircraft with 20 balloons attached to the tail and the goal is
to stay with as many balloons as possible within 3 minutes or to
burst the opponent's balloons. This game requires precision of
movements and an excellent 3D visualization rather than other
skills.
And how long will it be until extremists design and assemble a lethal and unstoppable virus this way and trigger a global epidemic that wipes out humanity in the name of Allah?
Really? This nonsensical fear comes up all the time. If you RTFA (I know, not fashionable here but try it some time, you might like it) you can find that even Fox News includes some factual information on occasion:
You can send them a text file and they'll send you back physical DNA
For those who are not familiar with molecular biology, having the DNA is only one step; it doesn't do much of anything on its own. If you're trying to alter a bacteria (anthrax, e coli, etc) you need to get the DNA in to the bacteria of your choice and get it to take it up in a way that results in a persistent change in order for it to hang around. Most of the time when foreign DNA is introduced into a bacteria it is promptly spat back out; so you need to overcome this hurdle. And if you're working with a virus it is even more technically challenging.
Nice work, Omri; you've just handed them the tools.
No, no, no. He has not handed them the tools. He basically just wrote a piece of software that brings different resources together into one simpler package.
If anything perhaps your comment deserved to be moderated up as "funny". It most certainly did not in any way earn "interesting".
The term has been around for over a decade now. Placing it in single quotes implies that it is very new or not well accepted; neither of which are correct for bioinformatics. As someone who has been to bioinformatics conferences in the past I can tell you there are thousands of scientists who would agree with this.
Some segments of brick and mortar retail (consumer electronics in particular) can survive if they evolve appropriately. Bookstores, however, might just not be a segment that can. With consumer electronics a retailer would be smart to focus on actually understanding what items consumers need immediately (ie, waiting for shipping would be a really big deal) and carry those. However with bookstores there isn't that much available for "need to have it" - especially when you consider digital distribution. Unless a large portion of B&N's brick and mortar business comes from titles that are not on the bestseller lists (which you can generally pick up at your favorite discount retailer), they don't have a lot to run with.
Whether or not ISPs can dictate what you can or cannot download should be directly related to whether or not they can be liable for you gaining access to illegal material. If they have no liability, then they should just bug off. If however the copyright holders can go after your ISP for allowing you to violate their copyright then it is in the best interest of your ISP to see that you do not.
The Wii U is the only console that isn't pegged on selling the latest sequel to the newest FPS. In other words, it is the only console that has titles that I care about. Between the PS4 and X720 there really are very few truly exclusive titles as those exclusive titles are so similar to non-exclusive titles that they don't matter.
People will rip on the Wii U for being insufficient in resolution or frame rate, but those are mostly people who want to buy Halo 27 and CoD 12 - Nintendo hasn't worried about those people for a long, long time.
Well, had you been keeping up with events, you would know that the cuts are basically across the board, not just focused on R&D.
I am well aware of that. However this summary is talking about how the budget sequestration will affect research agencies, so I wanted to point out what an epically stupid idea it is to cut research funding at any point. A few things are distinct to the research funding agencies that cannot be said about other federal agencies:
Research agencies have not had a budgetary increase that even met the rate of inflation for several years
Research dollars directly create jobs and save lives
As mentioned before, the ROI in purely dollars-for-dollars from research funding far exceeds that of any other section of the federal budget
In other words, cutting the research budget does not help anyone. It puts more people on unemployment, sends more research to foreign countries, and slows manufacturing development as well. If we truly want to improve the federal budget situation we should be increasing, not decreasing, the research budgets.
The economic payout of federal research investment averages around 8:1 in terms of job creation, new revenue, trade, etc. Even research that doesn't lead to new therapeutic modalities still puts people to work and can aid in other research endeavors. There are places in the federal budget with poor payout that deserve to be explored for savings, but research is not one.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how this is anywhere near as much of a failure as when Reagan showed his complete lack of understanding of Springsteen's Born in the USA, or when Paul Ryan did the same with We're not gonna take it, or Michele Bachmann with American Girl or Sarah Palin with Barracuda.
The real tragedy is that one of the four were elected.
innovative products and solid service
It is no surprise that dogs were the first domestic animals, they were more effective hunters than individual humans and humans could give dogs sources of food that they couldn't access on their own (notably bone marrow from cooked bones, though also various processed grains). We not only had the dog before we had the horse, the cow, the cat, any bird or any non-canine mammal, we had the dog before we had what some would consider to be civilization. Hence by extending the hunting ability of the human, the dog could be credited with helping to domesticate the human.
Also worth noting that some of the very earliest grave sites from humans had dogs buried along side the humans; the dogs were that important to the earliest humans.
Species do not make up their minds to evolve into X
You are right on that statement, however, the statement that wolves evolved into domestic dogs is not entirely true. For a population to fully evolve into a new species, the ability to of the new species to interbreed and produce fertile offspring with the original species must be lost. Domestic dogs can freely breed with wolves and produce fertile offspring, so they have not completely evolved into separate species.
My laptop hard drives average 1.5 years between failure. If an SSD drive dies in 5, that's a huge improvement.
And if you stop buying Seagate drives you'll see an even bigger improvement. I buy from the other large HD manufacturer and I average at least 3-4 years on my laptop drives with my laptops running on average at least 12-16 hours per day, year round. Generally I end up replacing them due to need for more storage space before I replace them due to failure; I still have a 30gb laptop PATA drive that works fine from 2004.
Seagate's QC has gone down the toilet in recent years anyways. Even worse, it is following their customer support down the drain. They should stop making the 7200rpm drives, then the 5400s, then the SSDs, then everything else and just go away.
It is brutally intolerably - and sometimes fatally - hot for at least 3 months of the year. It gets hit by hurricanes quite nearly every year. Alligators, Crocodiles, and giant Asian Pythons attack and eat everything in sight. Nobody can afford to own property and landlords are crooked. And now the land itself is caving in .
Remind me why people choose to live there?
Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
You can always move to Canada or England if you think they are so much better
That is a very common statement, but why do I need to leave? Why can't I help change the system and then other people can leave? Why are you the one who deserves to stay?
On top of that, the people who say things like "why don't you just go leave and live in Canada or the UK" often have no idea how difficult it is to do that. I am a highly qualified worker but I need a job offer in one of those countries in order to move there - I can't just show up and declare myself to be living there. Conversely, the conservative free-market havens like Somalia and Afghanistan tend to require almost nothing in order to live there, so why don't you leave instead?
It always amazes me that liberals complain that conservatives want to run their life
Well considering how the conservatives in government are constantly impeding on my ability to live my life, I would say they are indeed telling me how to run my life.
it is the liberals who are demanding that everyone follows their rules
Single payer health care does not demand you follow any new rules. If every other industrialized country in the world is any example, it would actually result in you keeping more of your earned income than what you currently keep - and it will still allow you to die from preventable ailments if you choose to do so.
And when you don't agree with the liberal it goes right to name calling.
Considering they way you are already throwing around unsubstantiated assumptions I would say you have already gone to name calling.
Nationalised single payer with optional extra private coverage is demonstrably cheaper and has (on average) better outcomes. Anyone with half a brain would get behind establishing it in the US
You are absolutely correct on that.
Unfortunately you have missed the fact that such a thing is officially labeled as "uncontrollable, completely nutbar, crazy-ass Stalin-esque Hitler-loving Castro-backing communist socialist fascism!". So while it makes sense to a sensible person, the dominant conservative narrative here tells people that it is a terrible, terrible idea that should never enter the discussion. Even our allegedly "liberal" president took the idea off the table about 12 seconds into the first discussion.
In other words, the US will never stand for single payer. This is an enormous travesty but it will always be that way; single payer won't come to the country currently known as the USA.
Oh and while you are at it do something about malpractice tort reform - the major cause of excessive medical costs.
You do know the most common profession for legislators before being elected, right? The most common profession is lawyer. Malpractice suits are a huge revenue stream for attorneys all over this country, there is no way they will attack it, that would be like United Defense telling the Department of Defense that they don't see a need for a new kind of missile, warhead, or transporter.
Hopefully at some point our country peacefully separates into two (or more) new countries so that the sensible and logical people can have single payer health care and the others can yell at each other about pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Is the absolute worst fucking buzzword out there right now
The worst buzzword out there is, without a doubt, "Obamacare". This clusterfuck of an industry bailout bill has pretty well no resemblance to health care reform, or to any of what Obama actually wanted to do.
It is a great way to figure out someone is a complete idiot right off the bat.
br? That is also true about people who use the word "Obamacare".
NIH articles must become freely available, but they are not typeset in the format of the journal it was published in. It's not nearly as nice, but, the content is all there.
That approach varies from journal to journal. Some journals opt for the alt-typesetting as you describe, and others opt to just release the entire final article.
Why not just try to sequence enough geness, to have it multiplied with a DIY PCM machine, and create the super deadly flu,
For one, the flu has already been sequenced, so doing it again wouldn't be useful.
Second, the flu genome is RNA, and around 14,000 bases long which is beyond what many PCR thermocyclers can do reliably, even with the best enzymes available. In other words, you would need better molecular biology techniques to get it to work well. Even more so, older DNA sequencers topped out at reading ~800 bases so you'd have to do a ton of sequencing in order to make sure you got your flu genome right after making your desired changes to it.
Third, if you want to create the virus and make it useful you need to transfect it into something, as the flu can't replicate without a host. Hence if it is "super deadly" you need to be able to get it into a host without killing yourself - and on top of that you need to get it to a host that can transmit it to other living people since corpses don't tend to sneeze much.
If you don't have access to a way to purify your DNA for it, forget about it
you mean like ordering it online?
No, not like ordering online. How do you expect to order your own DNA online if you want to sequence one of your own genes? And if you're going to send some of your cells to someone to purify your DNA, you might as well pay them to sequence it for you as they will have access to better instrumentation that will do it faster, cheaper, and more accurately.
by not attempting to do it yourself
Booooooo. I would rather try learn and fail.
The problem is there isn't a whole lot to learn from doing this. Methods and instruments have changed dramatically. What you would learn from an old sequencer would not be useful for a new one because the methods and results are so dramatically different.
To put it into a computer analogy, it would be similar to trying to learn computer animation by purchasing an old SGI Octane (after all, they used SGIs for Jurassic Park!) and spending a ton of money on old IRIX software, only to then realize that nobody uses it any more and you would have been better off financially and time-wise to buy a powerful PC and learn Blender.
Hence if your goal is to learn the old method just to learn the old method, then go for it. Your results will likely be garbage and your chance of getting anything useful out of it are very slim (after all, someone did get rid of the old sequencer). If, on the other hand, you want to learn how it is done today, and get meaningful results, stay away from it and talk to someone with a sequencer from this decade.
... they are not nearly as straightforward to use as you might have imagined, even if you thought it would be difficult to use. If you don't have access to a way to purify your DNA for it, forget about it. Even if you could purify your DNA well, you would still need the supplies (primers, buffers, molecular-grade H2O, etc) to run the reactions and then the software to analyze the results. And then once you get one reaction to work you have to set up and run many many more to sequence even one important gene to a meaningful extent. That said, don't even dream of sequencing your entire genome at home with an older sequencer (or any other that you could afford on the kind of salary that a slashdot reader is paid).
If you want some of your own DNA sequenced, send it off and then throw a big crazy party with the time, money, and space you saved by not attempting to do it yourself.
Many PLoS ONE level impact journals are free to publish in, unless you want colour in the print version or blow through their page limits.
I'm not aware of any no-cost (for authors) journals - at least, none that accept life sciences papers. For that matter, PLoS ONE is already seeing impact factors around 4 or so, which to the best of my knowledge is the highest impact factor to date for an open access journal.
That said, some journals will allow authors from certain (member) institutions to publish for free, but someone has to pay that membership cost. I'm also not sure why you mention color or length - I have never seen an open access journal charge for color or length as they aren't doing a print journal anyways.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has required this for some time now. Interestingly enough once NIH made this mandatory, the for-profit journals found ways to comply on a per-article basis so that academics would still publish with them.
The important thing to consider about all this, though, is that the for-profit journals still get more readers than the open access ones. I am one of many who wish that this was not the case, but it simply is. Hence if you want your work to be read by the largest number of possible readers, and become incorporated into your field of work, you want to get it into the larger, more prestigious -and more expensive - journals.
That said, some of the open access journals - PLoS ONE being a great example - are catching up quickly and drawing lots of readers and with them lots of citations.
The only problem left is that the open access journals cost about as much for authors to publish as do the for-profit journals. I had a paper in PLoS ONE recently and we paid somewhere around $1,400 to publish. By comparison the journal a lot of our "higher impact" work goes to costs around $1,500 and even Nature is in the same ballpark (not that we publish in Nature). So if the open access journals with their lower impact scores can't attract authors with lower publishing costs they need to do it with promises of good exposure.
I can't figure out the identity of the third game, and it doesn't list a publisher. It mentions
Battle at high altitude is set in an archipelago: the player moves his aircraft with 20 balloons attached to the tail and the goal is to stay with as many balloons as possible within 3 minutes or to burst the opponent's balloons. This game requires precision of movements and an excellent 3D visualization rather than other skills.
Has anyone heard of this game before?
And how long will it be until extremists design and assemble a lethal and unstoppable virus this way and trigger a global epidemic that wipes out humanity in the name of Allah?
Really? This nonsensical fear comes up all the time. If you RTFA (I know, not fashionable here but try it some time, you might like it) you can find that even Fox News includes some factual information on occasion:
You can send them a text file and they'll send you back physical DNA
For those who are not familiar with molecular biology, having the DNA is only one step; it doesn't do much of anything on its own. If you're trying to alter a bacteria (anthrax, e coli, etc) you need to get the DNA in to the bacteria of your choice and get it to take it up in a way that results in a persistent change in order for it to hang around. Most of the time when foreign DNA is introduced into a bacteria it is promptly spat back out; so you need to overcome this hurdle. And if you're working with a virus it is even more technically challenging.
Nice work, Omri; you've just handed them the tools.
No, no, no. He has not handed them the tools. He basically just wrote a piece of software that brings different resources together into one simpler package.
If anything perhaps your comment deserved to be moderated up as "funny". It most certainly did not in any way earn "interesting".
The term has been around for over a decade now. Placing it in single quotes implies that it is very new or not well accepted; neither of which are correct for bioinformatics. As someone who has been to bioinformatics conferences in the past I can tell you there are thousands of scientists who would agree with this.
I don't know that I have ever encountered such a site. Not that one couldn't exist, but I've never seen one. What am I missing out on?
Some segments of brick and mortar retail (consumer electronics in particular) can survive if they evolve appropriately. Bookstores, however, might just not be a segment that can. With consumer electronics a retailer would be smart to focus on actually understanding what items consumers need immediately (ie, waiting for shipping would be a really big deal) and carry those. However with bookstores there isn't that much available for "need to have it" - especially when you consider digital distribution. Unless a large portion of B&N's brick and mortar business comes from titles that are not on the bestseller lists (which you can generally pick up at your favorite discount retailer), they don't have a lot to run with.
Whether or not ISPs can dictate what you can or cannot download should be directly related to whether or not they can be liable for you gaining access to illegal material. If they have no liability, then they should just bug off. If however the copyright holders can go after your ISP for allowing you to violate their copyright then it is in the best interest of your ISP to see that you do not.
The Wii U is the only console that isn't pegged on selling the latest sequel to the newest FPS. In other words, it is the only console that has titles that I care about. Between the PS4 and X720 there really are very few truly exclusive titles as those exclusive titles are so similar to non-exclusive titles that they don't matter.
People will rip on the Wii U for being insufficient in resolution or frame rate, but those are mostly people who want to buy Halo 27 and CoD 12 - Nintendo hasn't worried about those people for a long, long time.
Well, had you been keeping up with events, you would know that the cuts are basically across the board, not just focused on R&D.
I am well aware of that. However this summary is talking about how the budget sequestration will affect research agencies, so I wanted to point out what an epically stupid idea it is to cut research funding at any point. A few things are distinct to the research funding agencies that cannot be said about other federal agencies:
In other words, cutting the research budget does not help anyone. It puts more people on unemployment, sends more research to foreign countries, and slows manufacturing development as well. If we truly want to improve the federal budget situation we should be increasing, not decreasing, the research budgets.
The economic payout of federal research investment averages around 8:1 in terms of job creation, new revenue, trade, etc. Even research that doesn't lead to new therapeutic modalities still puts people to work and can aid in other research endeavors. There are places in the federal budget with poor payout that deserve to be explored for savings, but research is not one.