In one nightmare scenario, facebook makes public all embarassing pictures of people doing legal things in college, like being drunk. HR departments have long realized that that if someone got drunk in college, they are poor workers who should not be hired. Unemployment reaches 70% followed by the worst depression ever.
Given the complexity of gene regulation in almost any given pathway, let alone a whole single cell, I'm willing to believe that a law of entropy governs rules and regulations, that regulations over a system that is in continuous change will inevitably increase in complexity and incoherence. Eukaryotic cells evolve fairly slowly by our lifetimes, but even so the rules on them have been changed so many times you can't possibly understand it. Government is changing much more rapidly, and so of course our laws are going to be in a constant state of flux, and it's constantly expanding (no comment on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing needs to be made) so of course it's getting insane.
If God himself can't make a "concise and understandable" set of rules to govern cell biology, there is no way our lawmakers are capable of doing so.
Out of curiosity, can anyone point me to a good history of when this became the standard? You can of course think of many instances in which ignorance of the law is in reality (though not of course legally) a good excuse, especially in technical issues or laws that run counter to common sense.
The wiki page on Ignorantia juris non excusat isn't particularly informative, I guess I'm looking for how that was established in american courts.
The second thought is that even if it were thought out by someone of high rank, it would probably wouldn't help.
Yes, but it gives the story a bit of a different spin, and helps explain why this is the case. Theoretically of course. I find it somewhat less frustrating than the alternative hypotheses I could come up with.
Having little understanding of my state's governance, I would hazard a guess that this isn't something that's been thought out by anyone of a very high rank. This seems more like a mid-level management decision, or rather the equivalent of that in government. In other words, this seems like bureaucracy doing it's thing, not using common sense as that generally gets you in trouble. It's not suprising to me anyway that a "mid-level" bureaucrat would copyright the laws without having a reason to do so. Why not, it's taxpayer money.
That could be naive: I'm suggesting it's not california government out to trip you up because you have to follow laws you can't know about so much as california government not being able to put their shoes on before they tie them. I admit I'm prone to believe in government incompetence before government conspiracy.
Why isn't there a study showing how much US pollution affects China?
Are you working on such a study? No? Then please go do that or complain about something else. And there you have one likely answer: no one did the study because no one is really interested enough.
The europe study alone supports the fairly obvious conclusion of "pollution travels." That's a second reason why it hasn't been done: it's conclusions would be fairly redundant.
A third potential reason is that we don't know the circumstances of that europe study, or at least I don't. It's possible that there was some specific event that allowed that study, as is often the case with those atmospheric studies. You can imagine the difficulties involved in figuring out where pollutants in the air came from: did this CO2 come from industry in europe or from down the street? So it may have been something like a gas that wasn't normally emitted that could be detected above the noise. Like a paint plant exploded and there was a highly detectable component of the vapors that were picked up three weeks after the event. Maybe nothing similar has happened in china.
A fourth could be that China has no interest in cooperating with a study that is going to conclude that the rest of the world has a reason to be concerned with all the coal they're burning. This is china we're talking about. I have no doubt that the chinese government would love to break the legs of anyone doing a study of their pollution, they know that a study showing pollution could go INTO china is going to draw attention to the pollution OUT OF china issue. They don't want that.
Racism is among the dumbest and least logical reasons you could come up with. Again, why jump right to that? Because it's the juciest explanation.
Your black people and fried chicken example is ludicrously stupid, by the way. And why wouldn't a study of that make slashdot's front page? Think for a minute, there are dozens of reasons that aren't about racism.
Well, for one thing FPS are only one genre I play, so the lack of mouse doesn't hurt me none. I also like the thumbsticks. And they just don't offer it on consoles.
Why do I prefer consoles? 1. as the DRM issues illustrate, I have less chores to do with consoles. I put the game in and it works, I don't have to check requirements, software settings, or any of the boring stuff. 2. More games. This shouldn't be the case, but it is.
Predition: jesterboy is going to be modded down for a post that PC gamer fanboys and anti-MS uh... whatever you would call them, dislike. If "-1: advocates use of MS products" were an option, that would be the one.
I sympathize with PC gamers to some degree. I don't think you should have to choose a gaming platform based on what's available or technical problems faced. It should be about the balance of features, power, and price. I realize that's the description for an ideal world of consoles that will never come to pass.
On the other hand, PC gamers are so arrogant about their graphics on the handful of games and get violent if you suggest that mouse and keyboard is not the solution to the world's problems.
I think DRM has been covered extensively enough about this game, and has little to do with the topic at hand. There's a lot more lessons here for game developers than DRM issues. Sure that seems to have killed it for this crowd, but there's no arguing that the game had a significant impact seperately from that.
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
I'll note that at no point were you "insanely not on fire." Were you "insanely monogamous" during this sequence of events though or just moderately monogamous? I ask because of the cigarette, maybe you and Bob did something to lower the level of monogamy you've got going on and that's why he lit up.
Does it have anything to do with the phrase he coined: "insanely monogmous"? Spelling aside, how are you insanely monogamous? Isn't that a little like saying someone is "Extremely not on fire?"
Ethnocentric? The fact that pollution from europe can reach the US in 3 weeks is just illustrating that pollution travels. Presumably, thats just based on a study that found that. No one is saying pollution from the US never goes to china, it's just likely that hasn't been specifically tested and would therefore be illogical to use to support the argument.
Why is it you're so anxious to see ethnocentrism? You really had to distort things to come away with that conclusion. Are you a lawyer who has found a way to sue scientists for ethnocentrism?
To be fair, he didn't actually say the democrats were left wing, he just said if you criticize the left wing you get modded down. In this case apperantly for it being off topic.
On your point though, of the two parties, it is the lefter one. There are parties further to the left. Like mine, which advocates sending children of republicans to reeducation camps and the total abolition of evangelical christians.
Like most of the parties besides republican and democrat though, we have no real impact on the political landscape, so it's fair to ignore us. True, the green party did help bush get elected, but my point is of the two parties that are worth noting in a realistic look at american politics, the dems are the left party.
You still have to balance challenge vs frustration. I don't know how WOW goes, but if level 1 players die with a stiff breeze, level 60 players kill anything in a 7 foot radius with mean aura alone, and you let the high-level users fight level 1 players as much as they like, no one is going to reach level 2 after a while. If the game is
"waiting to spawn...spawned oh wait no Killed by 1337master (level 999) waiting to spawn..." then I think most new users would quickly cancel their subscription. Maybe that's how it does go, I don't know, but I can't imagine it got to where it is by completely ignoring balance.
To be fair, 2 years is probably less time than it took them to be transcribed initially. So after however many hundreds/thousands of years, we should be grateful that technology has advanced to a point where it takes 2 years instead of 10. Maybe by 2500 it will only take 1 year to transcribe them.
I'm curious, what would constitute some good reasons for the buisness side to hate the research side? Did Bell lab scientists enjoy beating up MBAs and taking their lunch money?
Sure it has no basis, but can you really be 100% sure that what you are doing won't somehow go wrong?
WHEN IS THAT NOT TRUE?!? 100% certainty in anything is impossible. You can't be 100% certain that by sitting down right now you won't damage some cells in your butt just right to make a horrible earth-ending virus which will kill everyone on earth. Astronomically, unimaginably unlikely, but can you really take that risk?
Yes. Much the same, given proper animal testing first, we can safely assume we're not going to make "I am legend."
And in I Am Legend this was very very similar to what happened, with the terminator it was basically machines that could think, and no matter how great Linux is, it can't really think now can it?
The unlikely doomsday scenario I propose is further from the plot of a movie than the one you're proposing? That's your defense? Well then the terminator end is still more likely: I am Legend, the book the movie was based off of, was from a bacteria that was mutated as a result of a nuclear war, not a virus engineered to cure cancer.
Don't know if you can get the PDF, I think it needs a subscription, but in the paper, they are in fact using viral delivery.
Also a technical note, induced pluripotent stem cells, the ones that made headlines last year, can definitely be adult cells. I believe they took fibroblasts from a 60 year old man, transformed them using viruses, and made the pluripotent cells. So it's not correct to say "they didn't use pluripotent cells, but rather adult cells."
Oh, also to point out, the differences between this and that is that in the induced pluripotent stem cells, there was a high chance of causing tumors. Two of the virally transfected genes (I think nanog and c-myc) were oncogenes, and the IPS cells caused teratomas. These people found that you didn't have to revert the cells all the way back to something that could produce a teratoma.
In other words, you probably are far less likely to develop horrible tumors as a result of this treatment than the previous ones.
It is worth pointing out that viruses tend to deliver genes without reguard for location. There could be some that are targeted and I wouldn't know about it, but from what I've heard, there is still a possibility these viral vectors could plant the genes in the middle of a gene that prevents cancer, destroying it's function, and giving you cancer.
(The inevitable "I am legend" reference, on the other hand, has no theoretical basis, and is a little like me saying "Terminator!!!" every time someone talks about linux.)
This is absurd, I had to go through three different links to find it.
In case any of you were wondering, the mysterious three genes they used were the transcription factors "Ngn3 (also known as Neurog3) Pdx1 and Mafa," which are NOT the same as the induced pluripotent stem cell magic transcription factors. In those cases I think it was Oct4, Nanog, and c-myc.
Anyway, I find it interesting that an Ngn was used, I thought those caused neuronal differentiation.
You seem to have taken half of my line out of context, then made the point that I was making in one line. I don't know what to say to that other than to point out "I see what U did thair."
Slashdot Mirror
In one nightmare scenario, facebook makes public all embarassing pictures of people doing legal things in college, like being drunk. HR departments have long realized that that if someone got drunk in college, they are poor workers who should not be hired. Unemployment reaches 70% followed by the worst depression ever.
Er... there's no way our lawmakers can make a concise and understandable set of rules for government is what that should have said.
Given the complexity of gene regulation in almost any given pathway, let alone a whole single cell, I'm willing to believe that a law of entropy governs rules and regulations, that regulations over a system that is in continuous change will inevitably increase in complexity and incoherence. Eukaryotic cells evolve fairly slowly by our lifetimes, but even so the rules on them have been changed so many times you can't possibly understand it. Government is changing much more rapidly, and so of course our laws are going to be in a constant state of flux, and it's constantly expanding (no comment on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing needs to be made) so of course it's getting insane.
If God himself can't make a "concise and understandable" set of rules to govern cell biology, there is no way our lawmakers are capable of doing so.
Out of curiosity, can anyone point me to a good history of when this became the standard? You can of course think of many instances in which ignorance of the law is in reality (though not of course legally) a good excuse, especially in technical issues or laws that run counter to common sense.
The wiki page on Ignorantia juris non excusat isn't particularly informative, I guess I'm looking for how that was established in american courts.
Yes, but it gives the story a bit of a different spin, and helps explain why this is the case. Theoretically of course. I find it somewhat less frustrating than the alternative hypotheses I could come up with.
Having little understanding of my state's governance, I would hazard a guess that this isn't something that's been thought out by anyone of a very high rank. This seems more like a mid-level management decision, or rather the equivalent of that in government. In other words, this seems like bureaucracy doing it's thing, not using common sense as that generally gets you in trouble. It's not suprising to me anyway that a "mid-level" bureaucrat would copyright the laws without having a reason to do so. Why not, it's taxpayer money.
That could be naive: I'm suggesting it's not california government out to trip you up because you have to follow laws you can't know about so much as california government not being able to put their shoes on before they tie them. I admit I'm prone to believe in government incompetence before government conspiracy.
Are you working on such a study? No? Then please go do that or complain about something else. And there you have one likely answer: no one did the study because no one is really interested enough.
The europe study alone supports the fairly obvious conclusion of "pollution travels." That's a second reason why it hasn't been done: it's conclusions would be fairly redundant.
A third potential reason is that we don't know the circumstances of that europe study, or at least I don't. It's possible that there was some specific event that allowed that study, as is often the case with those atmospheric studies. You can imagine the difficulties involved in figuring out where pollutants in the air came from: did this CO2 come from industry in europe or from down the street? So it may have been something like a gas that wasn't normally emitted that could be detected above the noise. Like a paint plant exploded and there was a highly detectable component of the vapors that were picked up three weeks after the event. Maybe nothing similar has happened in china.
A fourth could be that China has no interest in cooperating with a study that is going to conclude that the rest of the world has a reason to be concerned with all the coal they're burning. This is china we're talking about. I have no doubt that the chinese government would love to break the legs of anyone doing a study of their pollution, they know that a study showing pollution could go INTO china is going to draw attention to the pollution OUT OF china issue. They don't want that.
Racism is among the dumbest and least logical reasons you could come up with. Again, why jump right to that? Because it's the juciest explanation.
Your black people and fried chicken example is ludicrously stupid, by the way. And why wouldn't a study of that make slashdot's front page? Think for a minute, there are dozens of reasons that aren't about racism.
Well, for one thing FPS are only one genre I play, so the lack of mouse doesn't hurt me none. I also like the thumbsticks. And they just don't offer it on consoles.
Why do I prefer consoles? 1. as the DRM issues illustrate, I have less chores to do with consoles. I put the game in and it works, I don't have to check requirements, software settings, or any of the boring stuff. 2. More games. This shouldn't be the case, but it is.
Predition: jesterboy is going to be modded down for a post that PC gamer fanboys and anti-MS uh... whatever you would call them, dislike. If "-1: advocates use of MS products" were an option, that would be the one.
I sympathize with PC gamers to some degree. I don't think you should have to choose a gaming platform based on what's available or technical problems faced. It should be about the balance of features, power, and price. I realize that's the description for an ideal world of consoles that will never come to pass.
On the other hand, PC gamers are so arrogant about their graphics on the handful of games and get violent if you suggest that mouse and keyboard is not the solution to the world's problems.
You get to whine about not being able to whine :-P
I think DRM has been covered extensively enough about this game, and has little to do with the topic at hand. There's a lot more lessons here for game developers than DRM issues. Sure that seems to have killed it for this crowd, but there's no arguing that the game had a significant impact seperately from that.
So can we get a little less whining about a well-whined about topic and focus on what they did RIGHT?
I'll note that at no point were you "insanely not on fire." Were you "insanely monogamous" during this sequence of events though or just moderately monogamous? I ask because of the cigarette, maybe you and Bob did something to lower the level of monogamy you've got going on and that's why he lit up.
Does it have anything to do with the phrase he coined: "insanely monogmous"? Spelling aside, how are you insanely monogamous? Isn't that a little like saying someone is "Extremely not on fire?"
Ethnocentric? The fact that pollution from europe can reach the US in 3 weeks is just illustrating that pollution travels. Presumably, thats just based on a study that found that. No one is saying pollution from the US never goes to china, it's just likely that hasn't been specifically tested and would therefore be illogical to use to support the argument.
Why is it you're so anxious to see ethnocentrism? You really had to distort things to come away with that conclusion. Are you a lawyer who has found a way to sue scientists for ethnocentrism?
To be fair, he didn't actually say the democrats were left wing, he just said if you criticize the left wing you get modded down. In this case apperantly for it being off topic.
On your point though, of the two parties, it is the lefter one. There are parties further to the left. Like mine, which advocates sending children of republicans to reeducation camps and the total abolition of evangelical christians.
Like most of the parties besides republican and democrat though, we have no real impact on the political landscape, so it's fair to ignore us. True, the green party did help bush get elected, but my point is of the two parties that are worth noting in a realistic look at american politics, the dems are the left party.
You still have to balance challenge vs frustration. I don't know how WOW goes, but if level 1 players die with a stiff breeze, level 60 players kill anything in a 7 foot radius with mean aura alone, and you let the high-level users fight level 1 players as much as they like, no one is going to reach level 2 after a while. If the game is
"waiting to spawn...spawned oh wait no Killed by 1337master (level 999) waiting to spawn..." then I think most new users would quickly cancel their subscription. Maybe that's how it does go, I don't know, but I can't imagine it got to where it is by completely ignoring balance.
To be fair, 2 years is probably less time than it took them to be transcribed initially. So after however many hundreds/thousands of years, we should be grateful that technology has advanced to a point where it takes 2 years instead of 10. Maybe by 2500 it will only take 1 year to transcribe them.
I'm curious, what would constitute some good reasons for the buisness side to hate the research side? Did Bell lab scientists enjoy beating up MBAs and taking their lunch money?
WHEN IS THAT NOT TRUE?!? 100% certainty in anything is impossible. You can't be 100% certain that by sitting down right now you won't damage some cells in your butt just right to make a horrible earth-ending virus which will kill everyone on earth. Astronomically, unimaginably unlikely, but can you really take that risk?
Yes. Much the same, given proper animal testing first, we can safely assume we're not going to make "I am legend."
The unlikely doomsday scenario I propose is further from the plot of a movie than the one you're proposing? That's your defense? Well then the terminator end is still more likely: I am Legend, the book the movie was based off of, was from a bacteria that was mutated as a result of a nuclear war, not a virus engineered to cure cancer.
Just to point out, the more informative full article is at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html
Don't know if you can get the PDF, I think it needs a subscription, but in the paper, they are in fact using viral delivery.
Also a technical note, induced pluripotent stem cells, the ones that made headlines last year, can definitely be adult cells. I believe they took fibroblasts from a 60 year old man, transformed them using viruses, and made the pluripotent cells. So it's not correct to say "they didn't use pluripotent cells, but rather adult cells."
Oh, also to point out, the differences between this and that is that in the induced pluripotent stem cells, there was a high chance of causing tumors. Two of the virally transfected genes (I think nanog and c-myc) were oncogenes, and the IPS cells caused teratomas. These people found that you didn't have to revert the cells all the way back to something that could produce a teratoma.
In other words, you probably are far less likely to develop horrible tumors as a result of this treatment than the previous ones.
It is worth pointing out that viruses tend to deliver genes without reguard for location. There could be some that are targeted and I wouldn't know about it, but from what I've heard, there is still a possibility these viral vectors could plant the genes in the middle of a gene that prevents cancer, destroying it's function, and giving you cancer.
(The inevitable "I am legend" reference, on the other hand, has no theoretical basis, and is a little like me saying "Terminator!!!" every time someone talks about linux.)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature07314.html
This is absurd, I had to go through three different links to find it.
In case any of you were wondering, the mysterious three genes they used were the transcription factors "Ngn3 (also known as Neurog3) Pdx1 and Mafa," which are NOT the same as the induced pluripotent stem cell magic transcription factors. In those cases I think it was Oct4, Nanog, and c-myc.
Anyway, I find it interesting that an Ngn was used, I thought those caused neuronal differentiation.
That might work, as my dad is Satan.
Who says "hope" has to be realistic? No wonder everyone around here is so cynical.
You seem to have taken half of my line out of context, then made the point that I was making in one line. I don't know what to say to that other than to point out "I see what U did thair."