So... I'm assuming that was a "No, there is no pre-trial review to throw out totally meritless cases such as sky-painting." Sarcasm was a bit thick, it almost seemed like nonsense.
I would be a terrible scientist if I didn't preface this with the disclamer: I could be wrong in every word, current theories may be wrong and I could also not be current. Having said that...
The evidence suggests that adult stem cells are not pluripotent and are fate restricted. An adult stem cell population that could give rise to any cell type would be a big liability to the organism, as that would be a population of cells much closer to producing tumors than a fate-restricted stem cell.
It is unlikely that an adult stem cell will be able to regenerate central nervous system neurons for two reasons. One: adults generally do not reproduce neurons of the CNS due to integration problems, thus after the age of 18 it appears unlikely you have a population of stem cells that can produce CNS neurons. Two: Since the neural progenitor cells line the ventricular lumen in the embryo and young children, that's where adult CNS stem cells would be. Unfortunately, this is at the center of the brain, getting to them even if they do exist would require significant damage to the brain.
So we don't think they exist in most people, and if they did you'd have to tear apart your brain to get at them.
Having said that, I should come right out and ask, is there evidence that you know of that adult stem cells can regenerate brain or spinal cord neurons? I'm far from an expert on that subject.
Barring an unexpected finding that bone marrow stem cells can naturally make CNS, the barrier to using adult stem cells to make CNS seems higher than the barrier of tissue rejection and tumorgenesis.
That's true, but assumes the insurance company is smart enough to think about it in terms like that, and also assumes there's no way to cover their asses legally. I'm more than willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case, health insurance needs to go.
So I suppose my question would be why the intellectual elites want to spend their research monies on embryonic stem-cell research that is more expensive, less successful, and morally questionable to a large sector of society, rather than on research in areas where successes keep coming, the cells are available without moral complications, and the costs are in general lower.
Well, human embryonic stem (HES) cells have already proven invaluable in research. Notably it was by studying them that we found out how to make induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS), basically how to make any cell into personalized embryonic stem cells without the embryo or the tissue rejection. That's not something you can say about adult stem cells: they won't ever be able to make new spinal cord cells. IPS cells can, and if we hadn't been researching HES cells, we never would have figured out how to make IPS cells.
And THAT'S why you don't ban different types of research: you don't always know where it's going.
The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.
Tissue rejection is a bigger issue from what I've heard. In plenty of cases, it's possible to take embryonic stem cells and turn them into mature cells which will be less likely to make tumors, but it would still be foreign tissue you would reject.
Of course, if you are not a woman who has given birth and saved your cord blood, that's not an option, and it doesn't appear that adult stem cells can fill all our stem cell needs, so we need IPS cells or embryonic stem cells. And also we've already learned a lot in labs from embryonic stem cells.
The first paragraph there references the term's origins in the cold war.
I was under the impression it started off as that and was now that "3rd world" meant underdeveloped, like wiki says, but that was an adaptation. Initially it seems to be like the "First person, third person" perspective, with the US and nato allies being first person, because when we talked, the first person "we" meant first world countries. I guess 2nd world countries would be the communist bloc, although I've never heard that term actually used. And then 3rd world would be everyone not involved, directly anyway, many of which happened to be poor countries.
So... why exactly are they going to this trouble then? Worried about the massive protests that would break out if they were percieved as discriminating against a legitimate trademark?
On his example, couldn't MS still sue? It would of course get thrown out, annoy the judge, and induce a countersuit if it went to court, but does the process of suing someone include a point where someone, clerk, judge, whatever, would say "This is idiotic! No, get the hell out, you can't sue for this!" before you actually get a summons? Like if I sue you for painting the sky invisible, wouldn't you still "be sued" and have to show up to court (at which point the judge would prompty beat me to death with the gavel)?
Two things 1. Enforcement of that relies on your ability to prove you were turned down because of your genetics and not because of some other reason they made up. I don't think it's likely this will do anything but force insurance companies to become stealthy about it.
2. Can the insurance companies still claim it was a pre-existing condition and deny coverage on that disorder? The counter argument to that would be a genetic test in many cases only shows you're LIKELY to get a disease, but you don't already have it. Again though, it's a broken system, and if you're in court and make that argument, you're probably going to lose against the health insurance's lawyers.
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows
Yeah, but how many of the increased fans were actually just/.ers that showed up to support an end to copyrights? And did they immediately leave when they realized the bands weren't running linux?
I notice the only thing supporting the idea that wiki defines true comes from wiki, which is not an outside-wiki source. Therefore it can't be verified (without RTFA at least) and is not true.
The list of 49 countries that Microsoft is targeting spans six continents, and ranges from the UK and the US all the way through to Chile, Egypt, Kuwait, Indonesia and China
China and the US I can see. Egypt, Kuwait, and Indonesia? Is that like a thing in those places, to pirate microsoft? Seems kind of pointless if not.
"Hey Kuwait? Yeah, we realize you have your hands full with your own problems, not to mention whatever "war on terror" stuff we're having you do, but could you also find time to enforce our patents? Like if you see anyone using microsoft, could you ask them if they bought it legitimately? Because you know, it hurts our workers when you allow piracy. Also, more to the point, we're going to sanction your ass. Well, unless you say you're helping us with our war on terror. Or give us some oil. Or say 'Hooray for democracy.' Or at least don't advocate the destruction of Israel. Out loud. Look, just SAY you care somewhat about software piracy. A non-verbal sign will do. Just like a 'thumbs up' if we say 'so you're not going to steal office today.' Please????"
And it was filled with gawkers: the stockboys, their girlfriends, their best friend, and other people who had no business at an industry event. Lord help you if you had a legitimate reason to be there, you'd still need to send someone to stand in line all day just to get a shot at using the Wii to cover it for your publication, decide if you want to allocate shelf space for it, etc.
Aw, sounds like someone is mad he'll have to wait in line again! (Kidding, kidding, I tease).
Serious question though: you're saying that at the old E3, the press was treated the same as the retailers? "In the industry" doesn't seem like a real reason to get priority for trying new games, unless you're just talking about press. If I make games though, there's no reason I should get to cut in line to try my competitor's products, at least none that's obvious to me immediately. Those gamestop stockboys you talk about dismissively, I would assume they generate a lot of buzz where it counts about upcoming games, I could see more reason to give them a sneak peak over other game developers.
Press, obviously, would seem like the top priority, and I'm a little suprised that it sounds like press had to wait in line, but if you're complaining because you work for, say, Blizzard and didn't get to try the wii out first, well, what makes you better than the "gawkers?"
If the publishers would spend more time pushing out innovative games (not the most recent installment of the flavor of the month) and provide a reason to purchase a genuine copy, then maybe they wouldn't need to be in the business of criminalizing their own customers.
Ideal world, yeah. But of course, publishing only novel games is very risky, while a lot of companies make tons of money without it. EA traditionally hasn't done much innovation, instead doing the exact milking of franchises that you described. But they're not going to file for bankrupcy any time soon. That's where you make your money.
On the other hand, there are plenty of good unique games that were failures, psychonauts being the textbook example.
It would be nice if we could kill two birds with one stone: getting rid of DRM and stale games, but I think getting game companies to give up their cash cows will only result in no DRM if they all go out of buisness.
If a game is good, charge a nominal fee which includes patches, etc and ability to play online.
Those who dont want to pay can play the local version (and may get hooked and end up paying)
That's a solution for those few games that are a balance between single player and multiplayer. WOW would be what without the online? Wouldn't be a draw at all to run around an empty world. Conversely, how many people would pay for online of half life?
aimed at challenging the conventional wisdom that the secrets of our genes are best kept to ourselves.
That conventional wisdom REALLY needed to be challenged. Next CW up for challenge: the idea that you shouldn't give strangers your ATM card and PIN number.
Great! Now we're going to be dependant on foreign oil not only to run our cars, but now to run our COMPUTERS?!? I'm so disgusted, I didn't even read the summary. Our addiction has reached new heights. What's next, making PLASTIC out of oil? Sheesh.
After all, why waste time doing research that will likely fail? And how do you know if it isn't published? If it is published then you can evaluate what not to do...
Well, just publishing the "Tried this, didn't work" many times would be worthless, because as I mentioned, the failed experiment often by itself doesn't prove anything. If I try to knock down a gene and don't see the result I'm expecting, there are dozens of reasons I didn't see it, only one of which is that it's real. To verify the gene is knocked down requires a more time consuming experiment than the actual one that failed, and would still not get me any closer to my goal in a lot of cases, so I wouldn't do it. Publishing "knocked this down, didn't do X" would not be enough for any other researcher to not try it if they were interested because of those dozens of other reasons.
There are some cases where a negative result to an experiment is an actual answer, which would be helpful, but as a blanket statement you cannot say that a negative result is something that should be published because it has use. In my research for example, they don't, especially not by themselves.
Well, I don't get the impression it's unique to science. It's just run of the mill not questioning experts because of apathy/ignorance. Look at economists, at least when the economy was working and didn't affect joe plumber personally. The news commonly took their word as infallible. "Economists said today that housing prices would continue their climb. Quote 'What goes up continues going up basically forever, so invest in my mortgage company.'"
And they are always truncating what politicians say. If what they say can't be summed up in 10 words, it's likely to not be reported. Look at Al Gore and the "He said he created the internet!" The man clearly did not think he created the internet, nor did he say anything that mean "I made the internet." If I remember correctly, he was saying he helped fund the initiative that gave rise to the internet, it got taken out of context. So while it would be best if the public understood the process a little better and bothered to understand the full picture rather than just an oversimplified version of what they want to hear, it could be worse. As such, only creationists are really out there trying to oversimplify things to use them against us.
I think the easiest way to improve things though is to start early, get good science teachers for high school and earlier. Of course, I'm not volunteering, so...
It's been almost a year since Doritos Dash of Destruction was announced for Xbox Live Arcade through the Doritos Unlock Xbox Competition, where a competition winner got to have his game created for XBLA. Where is it currently?
Answer: is there ANYONE who cares?
What is this gamesetwatch anyway? A covert marketer for doritos? A look at the "yaris" game will tell you, games that are really just commercials are less fun than watching a non-interactive TV commercial. Granted, I'm not "out on the street" where the youngsters talk about the next game they want (gives me chills just thinking about the level of dialogue that must go on on that street) or in a videogame store, but I feel it's safe to say that the people who are looking forward to this game being released are all executives working at Doritos.
Nintendo doesn't have any DRM issue that can't also be said of the 360 or PS3.
Of course there's the real issue. DRM is such an anathema around here that it doesn't even have to have real problems to be denounced. I get the impression that anything more than a note (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/9/24/) would automatically get a "brokenbydesign" tag and halfhearted calls to boycott it until they learn.
Slashdot Mirror
So... I'm assuming that was a "No, there is no pre-trial review to throw out totally meritless cases such as sky-painting." Sarcasm was a bit thick, it almost seemed like nonsense.
I would be a terrible scientist if I didn't preface this with the disclamer: I could be wrong in every word, current theories may be wrong and I could also not be current. Having said that...
The evidence suggests that adult stem cells are not pluripotent and are fate restricted. An adult stem cell population that could give rise to any cell type would be a big liability to the organism, as that would be a population of cells much closer to producing tumors than a fate-restricted stem cell.
It is unlikely that an adult stem cell will be able to regenerate central nervous system neurons for two reasons. One: adults generally do not reproduce neurons of the CNS due to integration problems, thus after the age of 18 it appears unlikely you have a population of stem cells that can produce CNS neurons. Two: Since the neural progenitor cells line the ventricular lumen in the embryo and young children, that's where adult CNS stem cells would be. Unfortunately, this is at the center of the brain, getting to them even if they do exist would require significant damage to the brain.
So we don't think they exist in most people, and if they did you'd have to tear apart your brain to get at them.
Having said that, I should come right out and ask, is there evidence that you know of that adult stem cells can regenerate brain or spinal cord neurons? I'm far from an expert on that subject.
Barring an unexpected finding that bone marrow stem cells can naturally make CNS, the barrier to using adult stem cells to make CNS seems higher than the barrier of tissue rejection and tumorgenesis.
That's true, but assumes the insurance company is smart enough to think about it in terms like that, and also assumes there's no way to cover their asses legally. I'm more than willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater in this case, health insurance needs to go.
So I suppose my question would be why the intellectual elites want to spend their research monies on embryonic stem-cell research that is more expensive, less successful, and morally questionable to a large sector of society, rather than on research in areas where successes keep coming, the cells are available without moral complications, and the costs are in general lower.
Well, human embryonic stem (HES) cells have already proven invaluable in research. Notably it was by studying them that we found out how to make induced pluripotent stem cells (IPS), basically how to make any cell into personalized embryonic stem cells without the embryo or the tissue rejection. That's not something you can say about adult stem cells: they won't ever be able to make new spinal cord cells. IPS cells can, and if we hadn't been researching HES cells, we never would have figured out how to make IPS cells.
And THAT'S why you don't ban different types of research: you don't always know where it's going.
The plasticity of embryonic stem cells is a disadvantage it seems due to the tendency towards tumor formation.
Tissue rejection is a bigger issue from what I've heard. In plenty of cases, it's possible to take embryonic stem cells and turn them into mature cells which will be less likely to make tumors, but it would still be foreign tissue you would reject.
Of course, if you are not a woman who has given birth and saved your cord blood, that's not an option, and it doesn't appear that adult stem cells can fill all our stem cell needs, so we need IPS cells or embryonic stem cells. And also we've already learned a lot in labs from embryonic stem cells.
The first paragraph there references the term's origins in the cold war.
I was under the impression it started off as that and was now that "3rd world" meant underdeveloped, like wiki says, but that was an adaptation. Initially it seems to be like the "First person, third person" perspective, with the US and nato allies being first person, because when we talked, the first person "we" meant first world countries. I guess 2nd world countries would be the communist bloc, although I've never heard that term actually used. And then 3rd world would be everyone not involved, directly anyway, many of which happened to be poor countries.
And, on the off chance it turns out to be true, can we mod REALITY as flamebait?
Law enforcement hasn't stopped using racial profiling, their own statistics (though not conclusions) say so
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjyQqKOJRj4Sp6capLjCY5RoXm2gD93UPH900
So... why exactly are they going to this trouble then? Worried about the massive protests that would break out if they were percieved as discriminating against a legitimate trademark?
Modded flamebait? Yes, he was clearly trying to provoke the wrath of all those non-hells-angels biker gang types browsing slashdot.
On his example, couldn't MS still sue? It would of course get thrown out, annoy the judge, and induce a countersuit if it went to court, but does the process of suing someone include a point where someone, clerk, judge, whatever, would say "This is idiotic! No, get the hell out, you can't sue for this!" before you actually get a summons? Like if I sue you for painting the sky invisible, wouldn't you still "be sued" and have to show up to court (at which point the judge would prompty beat me to death with the gavel)?
Trivial I guess...
Two things
1. Enforcement of that relies on your ability to prove you were turned down because of your genetics and not because of some other reason they made up. I don't think it's likely this will do anything but force insurance companies to become stealthy about it.
2. Can the insurance companies still claim it was a pre-existing condition and deny coverage on that disorder? The counter argument to that would be a genetic test in many cases only shows you're LIKELY to get a disease, but you don't already have it. Again though, it's a broken system, and if you're in court and make that argument, you're probably going to lose against the health insurance's lawyers.
I've produced a few bands' records, and asked them to repudiate copyright on their tracks. 2 of them have, and they've skyrocketed the amount of fans that come to shows
Yeah, but how many of the increased fans were actually just /.ers that showed up to support an end to copyrights? And did they immediately leave when they realized the bands weren't running linux?
Well, it's safer than if they had tried to operate on you using a robot that was running windows.
I notice the only thing supporting the idea that wiki defines true comes from wiki, which is not an outside-wiki source. Therefore it can't be verified (without RTFA at least) and is not true.
The list of 49 countries that Microsoft is targeting spans six continents, and ranges from the UK and the US all the way through to Chile, Egypt, Kuwait, Indonesia and China
China and the US I can see. Egypt, Kuwait, and Indonesia? Is that like a thing in those places, to pirate microsoft? Seems kind of pointless if not.
"Hey Kuwait? Yeah, we realize you have your hands full with your own problems, not to mention whatever "war on terror" stuff we're having you do, but could you also find time to enforce our patents? Like if you see anyone using microsoft, could you ask them if they bought it legitimately? Because you know, it hurts our workers when you allow piracy. Also, more to the point, we're going to sanction your ass. Well, unless you say you're helping us with our war on terror. Or give us some oil. Or say 'Hooray for democracy.' Or at least don't advocate the destruction of Israel. Out loud. Look, just SAY you care somewhat about software piracy. A non-verbal sign will do. Just like a 'thumbs up' if we say 'so you're not going to steal office today.' Please????"
And it was filled with gawkers: the stockboys, their girlfriends, their best friend, and other people who had no business at an industry event. Lord help you if you had a legitimate reason to be there, you'd still need to send someone to stand in line all day just to get a shot at using the Wii to cover it for your publication, decide if you want to allocate shelf space for it, etc.
Aw, sounds like someone is mad he'll have to wait in line again! (Kidding, kidding, I tease).
Serious question though: you're saying that at the old E3, the press was treated the same as the retailers? "In the industry" doesn't seem like a real reason to get priority for trying new games, unless you're just talking about press. If I make games though, there's no reason I should get to cut in line to try my competitor's products, at least none that's obvious to me immediately. Those gamestop stockboys you talk about dismissively, I would assume they generate a lot of buzz where it counts about upcoming games, I could see more reason to give them a sneak peak over other game developers.
Press, obviously, would seem like the top priority, and I'm a little suprised that it sounds like press had to wait in line, but if you're complaining because you work for, say, Blizzard and didn't get to try the wii out first, well, what makes you better than the "gawkers?"
If the publishers would spend more time pushing out innovative games (not the most recent installment of the flavor of the month) and provide a reason to purchase a genuine copy, then maybe they wouldn't need to be in the business of criminalizing their own customers.
Ideal world, yeah. But of course, publishing only novel games is very risky, while a lot of companies make tons of money without it. EA traditionally hasn't done much innovation, instead doing the exact milking of franchises that you described. But they're not going to file for bankrupcy any time soon. That's where you make your money.
On the other hand, there are plenty of good unique games that were failures, psychonauts being the textbook example.
It would be nice if we could kill two birds with one stone: getting rid of DRM and stale games, but I think getting game companies to give up their cash cows will only result in no DRM if they all go out of buisness.
If a game is good, charge a nominal fee which includes patches, etc and ability to play online.
Those who dont want to pay can play the local version (and may get hooked and end up paying)
That's a solution for those few games that are a balance between single player and multiplayer. WOW would be what without the online? Wouldn't be a draw at all to run around an empty world. Conversely, how many people would pay for online of half life?
aimed at challenging the conventional wisdom that the secrets of our genes are best kept to ourselves.
That conventional wisdom REALLY needed to be challenged. Next CW up for challenge: the idea that you shouldn't give strangers your ATM card and PIN number.
Well, that will give them moral superiority as they declare bankrupcy following a life-saving emergency surgery.
"I may live in a box, but it's cause the system is broken, not my fault."
Great! Now we're going to be dependant on foreign oil not only to run our cars, but now to run our COMPUTERS?!? I'm so disgusted, I didn't even read the summary. Our addiction has reached new heights. What's next, making PLASTIC out of oil? Sheesh.
After all, why waste time doing research that will likely fail? And how do you know if it isn't published? If it is published then you can evaluate what not to do...
Well, just publishing the "Tried this, didn't work" many times would be worthless, because as I mentioned, the failed experiment often by itself doesn't prove anything. If I try to knock down a gene and don't see the result I'm expecting, there are dozens of reasons I didn't see it, only one of which is that it's real. To verify the gene is knocked down requires a more time consuming experiment than the actual one that failed, and would still not get me any closer to my goal in a lot of cases, so I wouldn't do it.
Publishing "knocked this down, didn't do X" would not be enough for any other researcher to not try it if they were interested because of those dozens of other reasons.
There are some cases where a negative result to an experiment is an actual answer, which would be helpful, but as a blanket statement you cannot say that a negative result is something that should be published because it has use. In my research for example, they don't, especially not by themselves.
Well, I don't get the impression it's unique to science. It's just run of the mill not questioning experts because of apathy/ignorance. Look at economists, at least when the economy was working and didn't affect joe plumber personally. The news commonly took their word as infallible. "Economists said today that housing prices would continue their climb. Quote 'What goes up continues going up basically forever, so invest in my mortgage company.'"
And they are always truncating what politicians say. If what they say can't be summed up in 10 words, it's likely to not be reported. Look at Al Gore and the "He said he created the internet!" The man clearly did not think he created the internet, nor did he say anything that mean "I made the internet." If I remember correctly, he was saying he helped fund the initiative that gave rise to the internet, it got taken out of context. So while it would be best if the public understood the process a little better and bothered to understand the full picture rather than just an oversimplified version of what they want to hear, it could be worse. As such, only creationists are really out there trying to oversimplify things to use them against us.
I think the easiest way to improve things though is to start early, get good science teachers for high school and earlier. Of course, I'm not volunteering, so...
F1TFA
It's been almost a year since Doritos Dash of Destruction was announced for Xbox Live Arcade through the Doritos Unlock Xbox Competition, where a competition winner got to have his game created for XBLA. Where is it currently?
Answer: is there ANYONE who cares?
What is this gamesetwatch anyway? A covert marketer for doritos? A look at the "yaris" game will tell you, games that are really just commercials are less fun than watching a non-interactive TV commercial. Granted, I'm not "out on the street" where the youngsters talk about the next game they want (gives me chills just thinking about the level of dialogue that must go on on that street) or in a videogame store, but I feel it's safe to say that the people who are looking forward to this game being released are all executives working at Doritos.
Nintendo doesn't have any DRM issue that can't also be said of the 360 or PS3.
Of course there's the real issue. DRM is such an anathema around here that it doesn't even have to have real problems to be denounced. I get the impression that anything more than a note (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/9/24/) would automatically get a "brokenbydesign" tag and halfhearted calls to boycott it until they learn.