Why not design roads to be safe at high speeds instead of intentionally unsafe? This idea is kind of idiotic, and opens up government to liability. "Here's an idea, let's make roads intentionally dangerous! Screw people!" That's like saying, "Hey, let's hire someone to rape people that go down a dark alley, to teach other people that it's bad to walk down a dark alley!" Not rational.
This was not cyberbullying, although it may have involved it. These teenagers raped that girl, physically assaulted her in broad daylight with school teachers around and no one did anything.
This is a ridiculous law. It's like putting an additional tax on every piece of cutlery because someone might use a knife to kill someone at some point. It's not my responsibility when I want to buy a knife to cut my steak.
I know in Canada the assumption is guilty until proven innocent, so obviously this is a democratic way of saying "we're all guilty". Maybe the labels should actually get enough evidence together to show that they make less money because of piracy and actually go through the judicial system... oh wait, because they can't get any evidence of the sort!
At one point when I was very young and Napster was first released, I may or may not have downloaded some songs and listened to them, having no inclination whatsoever to spend money on them. I am older now, and I have no inclination to pirate music over the internet or otherwise, and I still do not spend any money on CDs. If I want music, I go to Pandora and listen to all of my favorite, thumbs-up songs for free. Limited to 40 hours of listening a month per channel? So what, I've got 12 different channels that all play the same songs.
This is all bullshit. Maybe if you didn't have so many lawyers on retainer, record labels, you'd end up with more profits. I don't "not buy" CDs because I can pirate them. I don't buy CDs because music is a luxury that I can get for free legally elsewhere, and that I can more often than not do without, especially if the only way I can get it is to sell my soul. People still buy Elvis or Beatles CDs because Elvis and the Beatles were interesting. Taylor Swift and Rhianna are not interesting. That's why you have to show so many boobs on CD covers... otherwise no one would care. No one cares that you have a studio pitch-match their sucky vocals to some guitar player, and for people that actually have more money than hormones (i.e. what your demographic should be), boobs are free.
This call to find bugs in Toyota's ECUs is like finding WMDs in Iraq... good luck with that. As the trite saying goes, "you can't prove a negative," and that's really bad for PR.
Statistically, Toyotas are still the safest cars, and there are a larger percentage of complaints to the NHTSA of unintended acceleration in Fords than there are in Toyotas.
Climate Change Argument Summary: 1) Straw man, 2) Defer to expert opinion, 3) ad hominem, 4) ad hominem, 5) red herring, 6) straw man, 7) misinterpretation, 8) ad hominem... 9) ??? (form political action committee?)... 10) PROFIT!!!
Simply, there's no data. It's all correlative, and "green" energy (i.e. nuclear) are better for the economy and national security so we should be utilizing them anyway.
I choose to purchase health insurance for my self and my family individually, not through my work, because that way I know that I will still have my own medical insurance wherever I go, whatever happens to my job (and I have a stable job in academia, so odds are not high that I have to worry). But I wanted to have more options than my institution provides me, so I went out on my own to get it.
I would say there's nothing to worry about, just know what you're buying. You have to be your own advocate, no one is going to do things for you. If you don't have any preexisting conditions, then there's really nothing to worry about, but if you do be sure to ask about that to figure out what you can do about it. There might be a more expensive policy they can offer you that covers it (this is a profit driven system, it's not some Grocery store Discount Card that gives you free stuff for no reason), or they might simply have a probationary period before your preexisting conditions will be covered (in which case you can just ask your doctor to load you up on your insulin or whatever before you switch policies... or mail order some from Canada, it's not as pure due to less stringent quality control (I know for a fact, I'm in the industry), but it will get you through, for instance. At any rate, I highly doubt you have anything to fear, but you should request quotes from various companies at once, get the best deal or even use one company against another to bargain on price.
This is all well and good, but where do you think these single payer systems gain the medical advances they need to efficiently and effectively treat people? Canada doesn't invent the new, low cost high tech medical procedure that drive down the costs of medical treatment, and they can't, because no pharmaceutical or medical company in Canada (there are a total of around 20 according to a search, none that I've heard of producing anything other than generics, and I'm in the industry) will make a profit by investing in research and development. They wait until the United States invents an amazing new technique or drug and then they cop it, try to get a tax-free licensing deal, or just wait until they figured out how to reverse engineer it after any kind of international patent expires in seven years.
If I thought a single-payer system, or government involvement in healthcare would help more people get cheaper care and live healthier lives, I would be entirely for it! Unfortunately, innovation is what drives down cost, providing newer cost effective techniques to the masses, and healthcare innovation does not come out of countries with government involved healthcare.
I graduated a year early from highschool and went straight to college with enough dual-enrollment/AP credits to be considered a junior. That didn't work out, and I ended up taking the second semester off. I just didn't have the maturity, experience, or sense of who I was to live on my own and make healthy decisions. That gave me time to figure out what I wanted to do, so I reapplied to a different program and got right back on track.
My sister-in-law also went to college a year ahead of schedule. She stayed with it, but she still hasn't quite gotten her feet on the ground six years later.
Sure, some kids, like 2 entire kids out of 6 billion. would be mature enough to be great at 16 out and on their own. I don't think that's very many, though. At that age, they barely have experience enough to know how to navigate a four-way stop. I think that the parents would have to be very involved in teaching their child how to live on their own and be responsible for that to work. It takes good parenting more than a smart kid for this to work.
Could be wrong, but I think the martial meteorites (not asteroids, wiktionary that if you don't know why), were fossilized bacterial cells that were fossilized within the martian rock, which has a different composition than any rock on earth (due to its distance from the primordial sun during planet formation).
This article claims complex organic molecules that they do not name, which means they might not have a common chemical name and no one cares about IUPAC nomenclature. I would assume the chemicals were similarly embedded. I doubt someone would put their career on the line saying they found extraterrestrial organic chemicals unless they could not easily be refuted (but that's just my trusting nature)... I have no reason to discredit the claim, at least.
I'm a Biologist, and you're somewhat mistaken. Antibodies are so infinitesimally tiny that no light microscope can possibly see them, even compared to virii which are also fairly invisible under a microscope. Antibodies are easy to detect, however, because they have a constant region on their tail end, which we know how to identify. We have compounds that bind to that constant tail end and as a result tag the antibody and what it is binding to. It's like the antibody is a flag pole, and biologists can run a colorful flag up that pole when we want to see what piece of the ground the flag pole is attached to.
Engineering antibodies is a simple matter, it's the basis of immunization/vaccination. Traditionally, we give chopped up bacteria and virii to a patient and their immune system detects those and creates more antibodies to put into the blood stream to stave off future infection. With this approach, instead we feed immune cells in a Petri dish an antigen, and they produce antibodies specific to that antigen. We can separate out these antibodies and purify them because they have that constant tail region that we can detect. We can then inject these into a person and these antibodies will cling to whatever thing they've been engineered to detect and attract the native immune system to it.
We can also use genetic engineering tricks to produce en masse a single specific kind of antibody. The technology has been there for research labs for decades. Either method will work fairly similarly, but in my opinion the former seems "easier", because we let the cells sort out what specific antibody to make. If we genetically engineer immune cells, we have to know exactly what gene sequence will produce an antibody targetting exactly what we want targetted... which is good if we know what the antibody gene sequence is already, but difficult to figure out on our own. Nature is much more efficient (and cost effective) at that kind of thing. Once we let nature figure out what's best, we can just figure out the gene sequence from there to mass produce the antibody.
Mac OSX GETS OUT OF MY WAY, WINDOWS KEEPS PROMPTING ME USELESSLY. OSX thus gives me more time for creative effort instead of technical troubleshooting.
Apple's history of "just works" allows people more time for creative effort. BECAUSE it is closed, there is not as much complication to have to figure out. There's no registry, no need for scripting, and if something crashes it tends to recover on its own. THAT'S why "creative" types use it, because it allows me to REMOVE one more OBSTACLE to my workflow. I'm not a "creative" in the typical sense, I'm a neuroscientist. Every time my Windows XP system crashes on me, or my network didn't initiate correctly, that's wasted time, effort, and it means I need to learn a new skill set to correct the problem.
The few times my OSX machine crash on me, it self recovers. OSX GETS OUT OF MY WAY, where as Windows and Linux KEEP PROMPTING ME WITH USELESS STUFF! The fact that fewer exploits target OSX is also a great benefit, and I don't have a billion choices for which hardware to buy so it's easier for me to choose the "best" one available to me. I don't want to spend a month figuring out if the Acer, Panasonic, or Dell is going to be the most ergonomic for my uses. With Apple, it's not even a question, because it's irrelevant insofar as I do not have a choice.
Also, by being an "outsider", there is less push to conformity. I don't know anyone else that uses a Mac, so I'm not being told which software is the "best" or how I should organize my workflow, thus allowing me to make my own decisions about what's important. This is critical in Science, and has been shown to be important in Sociology studies of how Science gets work done. "The Neuroscience of Screwing Up"
They won't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government doesn't know about. The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips, gifts, or private sales. Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes. The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail. Of course, that just "puts the burden" on "poor people", because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment, and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.
What obvious bias? It would be a bias if the authors were board members of the YMCA. They're not. That's a perfectly reasonable amount of authors, funded by well known national grant institution. And these claims are far from extraordinary: not using glucose stores (i.e. muscular inactivity) increases your blood glucose? No shit.
You don't read scientific papers very often, do you?
iBurst Corp. should settle the case by offering to pay for a Colonic treatment for each defendant... sounds like symptoms that "procedure" could "cure".
And honestly, I refuse to pay any amount of money for a stupid iPhone/Touch application. It's a goddamn PHONE/TOY. I'd only use the app as a novelty a FEW TIMES and then forget I have it. There is absolutely NO application I would be willing to pay any amount of money for. And I highly doubt anybody that has pirated an iPhone/Touch app would have actually purchased it otherwise. These developers should just be happy that they sneak GoogleAds into all of their apps so they get revenue from the "pirated" apps anyway.
No. NIH gives grants to students to do a specific project. Grants are contracted work, and the grant money is held by the lab to do that work, not by the student in their personal account. The grant relieves the lab/department of paying the stipend thus allowing the purchase of more resources including potentially a lab tech. If the student leaves, the grant still exists for the lab and is free from paying the stipend. Aside from that, when did the government start caring about where our tax money goes?
Engadget did a similar test a year-ish ago. AT&T was leaps and bounds faster than Verizon's 3G, in fact AT&T's 2G tested as fast as Verizon's 3G, and the latency was measurably lower on AT&T as well, at least where they tested the four providers:
[engadget]
Exactly. The instructor should take her aside while in class and say something like "I heard someone mention your facebook status, if you need anyone to talk to let me know and I can help or find someone that can help. Facebook is a public place, though, and in this day and age anything can be interpreted in many different ways so be careful what you post."
So, the retaliation against the AT&T CEO saying that iPhone users use too much data... is for iPhone users to use too much data? How is that going to ensure that the unlimited pricing stays in affect? There's a clause in the terms of service that allows them to cut you off at any time if they deem you've used too much data... I hope these 14 year olds with iPhones are willing to become martyrs... of course, it's the parents that are paying the bill, anyway. Hell if I've ever known a 14 year old that earned $150 a month.
When your boss gives you a new policy that's totally and unanimously considered unreasonable, just politely nod and go back to listening to music on your headphones even though they're "outlawed". What, does your boss watch you program all day long? If someone complains, then you complain about people talking too loudly on the phone and that you can't concentrate. Or if your boss catches you tell him it's sound cancelling headphones and you can't stand the sounds around the office because they distract you. No big deal.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not design roads to be safe at high speeds instead of intentionally unsafe? This idea is kind of idiotic, and opens up government to liability. "Here's an idea, let's make roads intentionally dangerous! Screw people!" That's like saying, "Hey, let's hire someone to rape people that go down a dark alley, to teach other people that it's bad to walk down a dark alley!" Not rational.
She dated one of the guys for literally 2 days, and never dated his friend.
This was not cyberbullying, although it may have involved it. These teenagers raped that girl, physically assaulted her in broad daylight with school teachers around and no one did anything.
This is a ridiculous law. It's like putting an additional tax on every piece of cutlery because someone might use a knife to kill someone at some point. It's not my responsibility when I want to buy a knife to cut my steak.
... oh wait, because they can't get any evidence of the sort!
... otherwise no one would care. No one cares that you have a studio pitch-match their sucky vocals to some guitar player, and for people that actually have more money than hormones (i.e. what your demographic should be), boobs are free.
I know in Canada the assumption is guilty until proven innocent, so obviously this is a democratic way of saying "we're all guilty". Maybe the labels should actually get enough evidence together to show that they make less money because of piracy and actually go through the judicial system
At one point when I was very young and Napster was first released, I may or may not have downloaded some songs and listened to them, having no inclination whatsoever to spend money on them. I am older now, and I have no inclination to pirate music over the internet or otherwise, and I still do not spend any money on CDs. If I want music, I go to Pandora and listen to all of my favorite, thumbs-up songs for free. Limited to 40 hours of listening a month per channel? So what, I've got 12 different channels that all play the same songs.
This is all bullshit. Maybe if you didn't have so many lawyers on retainer, record labels, you'd end up with more profits. I don't "not buy" CDs because I can pirate them. I don't buy CDs because music is a luxury that I can get for free legally elsewhere, and that I can more often than not do without, especially if the only way I can get it is to sell my soul. People still buy Elvis or Beatles CDs because Elvis and the Beatles were interesting. Taylor Swift and Rhianna are not interesting. That's why you have to show so many boobs on CD covers
This call to find bugs in Toyota's ECUs is like finding WMDs in Iraq ... good luck with that. As the trite saying goes, "you can't prove a negative," and that's really bad for PR.
Statistically, Toyotas are still the safest cars, and there are a larger percentage of complaints to the NHTSA of unintended acceleration in Fords than there are in Toyotas.
Climate Change Argument Summary: ... 9) ??? (form political action committee?) ... 10) PROFIT!!!
1) Straw man, 2) Defer to expert opinion, 3) ad hominem, 4) ad hominem, 5) red herring, 6) straw man, 7) misinterpretation, 8) ad hominem
Simply, there's no data. It's all correlative, and "green" energy (i.e. nuclear) are better for the economy and national security so we should be utilizing them anyway.
I choose to purchase health insurance for my self and my family individually, not through my work, because that way I know that I will still have my own medical insurance wherever I go, whatever happens to my job (and I have a stable job in academia, so odds are not high that I have to worry). But I wanted to have more options than my institution provides me, so I went out on my own to get it.
... or mail order some from Canada, it's not as pure due to less stringent quality control (I know for a fact, I'm in the industry), but it will get you through, for instance. At any rate, I highly doubt you have anything to fear, but you should request quotes from various companies at once, get the best deal or even use one company against another to bargain on price.
I would say there's nothing to worry about, just know what you're buying. You have to be your own advocate, no one is going to do things for you. If you don't have any preexisting conditions, then there's really nothing to worry about, but if you do be sure to ask about that to figure out what you can do about it. There might be a more expensive policy they can offer you that covers it (this is a profit driven system, it's not some Grocery store Discount Card that gives you free stuff for no reason), or they might simply have a probationary period before your preexisting conditions will be covered (in which case you can just ask your doctor to load you up on your insulin or whatever before you switch policies
This is all well and good, but where do you think these single payer systems gain the medical advances they need to efficiently and effectively treat people? Canada doesn't invent the new, low cost high tech medical procedure that drive down the costs of medical treatment, and they can't, because no pharmaceutical or medical company in Canada (there are a total of around 20 according to a search, none that I've heard of producing anything other than generics, and I'm in the industry) will make a profit by investing in research and development. They wait until the United States invents an amazing new technique or drug and then they cop it, try to get a tax-free licensing deal, or just wait until they figured out how to reverse engineer it after any kind of international patent expires in seven years.
If I thought a single-payer system, or government involvement in healthcare would help more people get cheaper care and live healthier lives, I would be entirely for it! Unfortunately, innovation is what drives down cost, providing newer cost effective techniques to the masses, and healthcare innovation does not come out of countries with government involved healthcare.
I graduated a year early from highschool and went straight to college with enough dual-enrollment/AP credits to be considered a junior. That didn't work out, and I ended up taking the second semester off. I just didn't have the maturity, experience, or sense of who I was to live on my own and make healthy decisions. That gave me time to figure out what I wanted to do, so I reapplied to a different program and got right back on track.
My sister-in-law also went to college a year ahead of schedule. She stayed with it, but she still hasn't quite gotten her feet on the ground six years later.
Sure, some kids, like 2 entire kids out of 6 billion. would be mature enough to be great at 16 out and on their own. I don't think that's very many, though. At that age, they barely have experience enough to know how to navigate a four-way stop. I think that the parents would have to be very involved in teaching their child how to live on their own and be responsible for that to work. It takes good parenting more than a smart kid for this to work.
Wikipedia is not a source.
Could be wrong, but I think the martial meteorites (not asteroids, wiktionary that if you don't know why), were fossilized bacterial cells that were fossilized within the martian rock, which has a different composition than any rock on earth (due to its distance from the primordial sun during planet formation).
... I have no reason to discredit the claim, at least.
This article claims complex organic molecules that they do not name, which means they might not have a common chemical name and no one cares about IUPAC nomenclature. I would assume the chemicals were similarly embedded. I doubt someone would put their career on the line saying they found extraterrestrial organic chemicals unless they could not easily be refuted (but that's just my trusting nature)
I'm a Biologist, and you're somewhat mistaken. Antibodies are so infinitesimally tiny that no light microscope can possibly see them, even compared to virii which are also fairly invisible under a microscope. Antibodies are easy to detect, however, because they have a constant region on their tail end, which we know how to identify. We have compounds that bind to that constant tail end and as a result tag the antibody and what it is binding to. It's like the antibody is a flag pole, and biologists can run a colorful flag up that pole when we want to see what piece of the ground the flag pole is attached to.
... which is good if we know what the antibody gene sequence is already, but difficult to figure out on our own. Nature is much more efficient (and cost effective) at that kind of thing. Once we let nature figure out what's best, we can just figure out the gene sequence from there to mass produce the antibody.
Engineering antibodies is a simple matter, it's the basis of immunization/vaccination. Traditionally, we give chopped up bacteria and virii to a patient and their immune system detects those and creates more antibodies to put into the blood stream to stave off future infection. With this approach, instead we feed immune cells in a Petri dish an antigen, and they produce antibodies specific to that antigen. We can separate out these antibodies and purify them because they have that constant tail region that we can detect. We can then inject these into a person and these antibodies will cling to whatever thing they've been engineered to detect and attract the native immune system to it.
We can also use genetic engineering tricks to produce en masse a single specific kind of antibody. The technology has been there for research labs for decades. Either method will work fairly similarly, but in my opinion the former seems "easier", because we let the cells sort out what specific antibody to make. If we genetically engineer immune cells, we have to know exactly what gene sequence will produce an antibody targetting exactly what we want targetted
I do neurobiology for a living ... why would anyone do this for FUN?!
Mac OSX GETS OUT OF MY WAY, WINDOWS KEEPS PROMPTING ME USELESSLY. OSX thus gives me more time for creative effort instead of technical troubleshooting.
Apple's history of "just works" allows people more time for creative effort. BECAUSE it is closed, there is not as much complication to have to figure out. There's no registry, no need for scripting, and if something crashes it tends to recover on its own. THAT'S why "creative" types use it, because it allows me to REMOVE one more OBSTACLE to my workflow.
I'm not a "creative" in the typical sense, I'm a neuroscientist. Every time my Windows XP system crashes on me, or my network didn't initiate correctly, that's wasted time, effort, and it means I need to learn a new skill set to correct the problem.
The few times my OSX machine crash on me, it self recovers. OSX GETS OUT OF MY WAY, where as Windows and Linux KEEP PROMPTING ME WITH USELESS STUFF! The fact that fewer exploits target OSX is also a great benefit, and I don't have a billion choices for which hardware to buy so it's easier for me to choose the "best" one available to me. I don't want to spend a month figuring out if the Acer, Panasonic, or Dell is going to be the most ergonomic for my uses. With Apple, it's not even a question, because it's irrelevant insofar as I do not have a choice.
Also, by being an "outsider", there is less push to conformity. I don't know anyone else that uses a Mac, so I'm not being told which software is the "best" or how I should organize my workflow, thus allowing me to make my own decisions about what's important. This is critical in Science, and has been shown to be important in Sociology studies of how Science gets work done. "The Neuroscience of Screwing Up"
They won't do it because then the tax payer knows what sources of income the government doesn't know about. The uncertainty now is enough to scare some people into declaring their tips, gifts, or private sales. Full disclosure from the government makes it easierto dodge taxes. The correlary is that more people might pay if the simply get a bill in the mail. Of course, that just "puts the burden" on "poor people", because the educated would be smart enough to get away with not declaring an overseas investment, and the poor would be too afraid not to send money they know the government wants.
What obvious bias? It would be a bias if the authors were board members of the YMCA. They're not. That's a perfectly reasonable amount of authors, funded by well known national grant institution. And these claims are far from extraordinary: not using glucose stores (i.e. muscular inactivity) increases your blood glucose? No shit.
You don't read scientific papers very often, do you?
iBurst Corp. should settle the case by offering to pay for a Colonic treatment for each defendant ... sounds like symptoms that "procedure" could "cure".
And honestly, I refuse to pay any amount of money for a stupid iPhone/Touch application. It's a goddamn PHONE/TOY. I'd only use the app as a novelty a FEW TIMES and then forget I have it. There is absolutely NO application I would be willing to pay any amount of money for. And I highly doubt anybody that has pirated an iPhone/Touch app would have actually purchased it otherwise. These developers should just be happy that they sneak GoogleAds into all of their apps so they get revenue from the "pirated" apps anyway.
That's called "opportunity costs", and it's a good way for businesses to cook their books, I mean lower their taxes.
No. NIH gives grants to students to do a specific project. Grants are contracted work, and the grant money is held by the lab to do that work, not by the student in their personal account. The grant relieves the lab/department of paying the stipend thus allowing the purchase of more resources including potentially a lab tech. If the student leaves, the grant still exists for the lab and is free from paying the stipend. Aside from that, when did the government start caring about where our tax money goes?
Engadget did a similar test a year-ish ago. AT&T was leaps and bounds faster than Verizon's 3G, in fact AT&T's 2G tested as fast as Verizon's 3G, and the latency was measurably lower on AT&T as well, at least where they tested the four providers: [engadget]
Oh, and she was learning to become a mortician? Of course she uses dark humor!
Exactly. The instructor should take her aside while in class and say something like "I heard someone mention your facebook status, if you need anyone to talk to let me know and I can help or find someone that can help. Facebook is a public place, though, and in this day and age anything can be interpreted in many different ways so be careful what you post."
So, the retaliation against the AT&T CEO saying that iPhone users use too much data ... is for iPhone users to use too much data? How is that going to ensure that the unlimited pricing stays in affect? There's a clause in the terms of service that allows them to cut you off at any time if they deem you've used too much data... I hope these 14 year olds with iPhones are willing to become martyrs ... of course, it's the parents that are paying the bill, anyway. Hell if I've ever known a 14 year old that earned $150 a month.
When your boss gives you a new policy that's totally and unanimously considered unreasonable, just politely nod and go back to listening to music on your headphones even though they're "outlawed". What, does your boss watch you program all day long? If someone complains, then you complain about people talking too loudly on the phone and that you can't concentrate. Or if your boss catches you tell him it's sound cancelling headphones and you can't stand the sounds around the office because they distract you. No big deal.