Just because not everybody wants to be "cool"? I don't want "cool" things. I hate the ipod (I got one as a gift a while back) and I hated it to death, so i kept using my Creative instead.
So... you think it's cool to not be cool. Die hipster scum!
Kidding. I have a creative nomad 2 that is the same size as a discman and I do love it. I think of it as security: no one is ever, ever going to steal it because they think it's a discman, and you can't give those things away.
In these economic times people don't seem to care so much about "silly" things like privacy and security when they're scrapping for a job.
Do I smell sarcasm? Are you saying people who become less concerned with privacy when facing unemployment are the ones that are silly? If so, I take it then that you have stable employment and have no ability to empathize. If you were facing losing your house, keeping your home address private would be of very little concern. If you were risking bankruptcy, I'm sure you'd be less worried about spam. In either case, you'd be less concerned with more important privacy-related issues as well.
It is sad, but it's not silly. Plenty of people who are not silly, when faced with desperate situations, have had to give up their rights as luxuries they can't keep. They shouldn't be luxuries, but if you can't afford to defend your rights and stand on principle when they're challeneged, that's what they are.
If you weren't actually mocking people whose priorities change when looking for jobs, then... I guess that was some misdirected anger from the last time I was unemployed and I apologize.
In other words you want them to skip all the intermediate stages of development and go right to the end. Hmm... that actually does sound pretty good.
Attention everyone: notify me when they've cured cancer, figured out if global warming is real or a hoax (and if real have solved it), and they have MP3s that are thin as a card and rollable. Until then, I'm going to be pouting in my room.
I have never understood the controversy here since there are plenty of alternatives to taking it from healthy babies, aborted babies, etc.
They don't come from natural conception. ES cells are, from what I've heard, initially harvested from 5-6 day old blastocysts. This is about the time the embryo implants itself into the uterus, about a week before even a pregnancy test would reveal anything. These are by necessity embryos that are in vitro fertilized. Aborted embryos are too old.
No, because we have the FDA and it runs perfectly:-D. Kidding, but thalidomide, which the FDA stopped, caused 10,000 birth defects worldwide. Not to mention that FDA trials killed innumerable drugs which did well in mice but were worthless in humans. Each had lots of money sunk into them. Without the FDA, many of those drugs would have been sold anyway, in an attempt to recoup the losses. You're naive if you think otherwise.
And the government has a conscience?
Clever, but not the issue here. The FDA is needed to keep bad drugs from being pushed to market by corporate greed. The alternative is scum selling snake oil again, as it was before the FDA.
Bush disallowed GOVERNMENT funding of new cell lines, not private funding.
The vast majority of research funding comes from federal funds. Private funding is generally spent on better investments, like a slightly better form of viagra, not primary research which will not directly lead to something profitable. And primary research that doesn't produce anything directly besides knowledge is essential to pretty much all new technology. Radio could not have been developed without Maxwell's equations, which by themselves were not something you could sell.
Fortunately, not all government funding was cut. I've heard what's driving embryonic stem cell research these days is state funding.
If embryonic stem cells were the miracle cure that people have been claiming, you'd think there'd be plenty of private money for it.
See above. Private entities don't like to invest in research which is not a "sure thing," or won't yeild anything concrete besides advancement of knowledge, but that's usually the most important research.
Not to mention the amount of paperwork that required, ensuring that not so much as a 10 cent pipette tip purchased using federal funding was used for that. You know, because the best use of our researchers is filling out more forms, not doing research.
Wow, that apperantly sounded serious to at least two people (a mod and happy head). For the record, I did not think he was advocating the destruction of the moon and the atmosphere, and I realize that would also be quite problematic. It was, how you say, a joke.
Gotta love the FDA. How long has this technology been around before they finally approved the first human tests of it? Did you know that if current FDA regulations had been in place at the time, neither penicillin nor aspirin would have ever been approved for human use?
The FDA also prevented Thalidomide from being sold wholesale in the country before the effects of it were known. Not the case in europe, as a result there were a lot of ugly birth defects.
Regulation is not going to be perfect ever, as we all learned in junior high, and have learned continuously since then. Still, I'd rather have an overly cautious and slow moving bureacracy investigating medicines and treatments than just hoping big pharmecuticals listen to their conscience. Mostly because they have none. Oversight is definitely needed.
The first human embryonic stem cells were developed by Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998.
It's true, the first human embryonic stem cells were made by Dr. Thomspon in 1998. Hard times for those of us born before 1998. We had to grow using animal embryonic stem cells. That's no way to make yourself. ... at least I thought it was funny.
Since cosmic rays are striking the earth all the time, and a decent percentage of them have a much higher energy level than anything the LHC can produce, we should have already seen such a phenomena.
Sorry if I annoy anyone with this question, but aren't there some big differences between the LHC and those cosmic rays? If they're EXACTLY the same type of reaction, and do happen all the time, then it's probably okay. If we're just talking about high-energy collisions, but, I don't know, the LHC is going to be doing it differently somehow, doesn't really prove much.
You can throw your lit cigar into the ocean and it will go out. Concluding that throwing your lit cigar into ANY liquid, including gasoline, is safe because you did it in the ocean would of course be ridiculous, since it's different materials.
Note that I know little to nothing about physics, and I'm not saying my metaphor is good for the situation, just good for illustrating a potential flaw in the logic.
While I think the number crunching has already proven to those worried that the LHC is not a threat, I do agree that "Let's find out" is some horribly flawed logic when talking about earth-destroying black holes, and should be modded funny, not insightful.
Groups of high energy particles striking each other is not rare in nature. It happens all the time, right in our own atmosphere, on the surface of the moon.
So if I understand you, shutting down the LHC is not enough to ensure the world will not end, we also have to destroy the moon and our atmosphere.
No, I've thought that for a long time. But I showed them, I simply downloaded a cracked version of their antivirus software! Sure, my computer promptly stopped working, but I'm sure that would have happened anyway. Correlation is not causation.
He was off because we were at a bar a few years ago, I was pretty hammered and started talking about how I was a ninja and would kill all spammers within 4 years. I guess he took me seriously. I also suggested he make a new form of windows called vista. Again, I'm sorry. I've learned my lesson and will not go out drinking with that dude anymore.
No, I joke like the article headline was misleading, not like this isn't a serious deal. This is a serious deal, and overstating it waters it down. You read "NSA spied on everyone" and think "Oh my God, the government spied on me!" Many americans, if they read the article, would read that no, they didn't spy on everyone, they just had that ability and spied on news outlets, people they shouldn't have, but you yourself probably didn't get spied on, and their reaction (not saying it's a sensical or good one, just one many people are going to have) is "Oh, that's not what I thought, not interesting, what's Obama's daughters doing?"
In the end, the misleading title makes people care less about the still-very-important issue. That was my point, sorry for the little bit of humor that was apperantly itself misleading.
I understood what it meant, my point was that it was different from what the headline said (or at least implied.)
To make a pointless car metaphor, it's like if you're trying to sell a junked car, and you put in the ad "will run like new!" when it doesn't have an engine, your rationale being it will run like new once you put a new engine in it.
This is not the NSA spying on everyone, this is the NSA being ABLE to spy on everyone. They could have spied on me, yes, but as he pointed out in the article, they didn't spy on EVERYONE.
Tice further explained that "even for the NSA it's impossible to literally collect all communications.... What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata... and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected."
So... they didn't really spy on everyone in the sense that they listened to my conversations so much as they COULD have.
Scary stuff, but the/. headline is horribly misleading.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because not everybody wants to be "cool"? I don't want "cool" things. I hate the ipod (I got one as a gift a while back) and I hated it to death, so i kept using my Creative instead.
So... you think it's cool to not be cool. Die hipster scum!
Kidding. I have a creative nomad 2 that is the same size as a discman and I do love it. I think of it as security: no one is ever, ever going to steal it because they think it's a discman, and you can't give those things away.
In these economic times people don't seem to care so much about "silly" things like privacy and security when they're scrapping for a job.
Do I smell sarcasm? Are you saying people who become less concerned with privacy when facing unemployment are the ones that are silly? If so, I take it then that you have stable employment and have no ability to empathize. If you were facing losing your house, keeping your home address private would be of very little concern. If you were risking bankruptcy, I'm sure you'd be less worried about spam. In either case, you'd be less concerned with more important privacy-related issues as well.
It is sad, but it's not silly. Plenty of people who are not silly, when faced with desperate situations, have had to give up their rights as luxuries they can't keep. They shouldn't be luxuries, but if you can't afford to defend your rights and stand on principle when they're challeneged, that's what they are.
If you weren't actually mocking people whose priorities change when looking for jobs, then... I guess that was some misdirected anger from the last time I was unemployed and I apologize.
The ideas they espouse are disgusting, and yet they manage to obtain web hosting services in the United States.
Of course, it would be even more disgusting if they were not allowed to get a website BECAUSE of their ideas.
I don't know about you, but my MP3's are already microscopically thin (the width of the bits on the platter)
Well, make it able to be rolled, cure cancer, and that global warming thing, and I might come out.
I did mean MP3 player I think...
In other words you want them to skip all the intermediate stages of development and go right to the end. Hmm... that actually does sound pretty good.
Attention everyone: notify me when they've cured cancer, figured out if global warming is real or a hoax (and if real have solved it), and they have MP3s that are thin as a card and rollable. Until then, I'm going to be pouting in my room.
No, but there's a simple solution to that: stop wrapping your headphone wires around histones.
that then comes and kills us all before we advance enough to be a threat to them.
Right before that would happen, he'll deploy "stage three" by handing the aliens a USB drive...
I at least find it funny that IT joins many other fields in realizing nature faced a similar problem and solved it billions of years ago.
An indiscrete physicist.
I have never understood the controversy here since there are plenty of alternatives to taking it from healthy babies, aborted babies, etc.
They don't come from natural conception. ES cells are, from what I've heard, initially harvested from 5-6 day old blastocysts. This is about the time the embryo implants itself into the uterus, about a week before even a pregnancy test would reveal anything. These are by necessity embryos that are in vitro fertilized. Aborted embryos are too old.
Ever heard of a bad drug killing 30,000 people?
No, because we have the FDA and it runs perfectly :-D. Kidding, but thalidomide, which the FDA stopped, caused 10,000 birth defects worldwide. Not to mention that FDA trials killed innumerable drugs which did well in mice but were worthless in humans. Each had lots of money sunk into them. Without the FDA, many of those drugs would have been sold anyway, in an attempt to recoup the losses. You're naive if you think otherwise.
And the government has a conscience?
Clever, but not the issue here. The FDA is needed to keep bad drugs from being pushed to market by corporate greed. The alternative is scum selling snake oil again, as it was before the FDA.
Bush disallowed GOVERNMENT funding of new cell lines, not private funding.
The vast majority of research funding comes from federal funds. Private funding is generally spent on better investments, like a slightly better form of viagra, not primary research which will not directly lead to something profitable. And primary research that doesn't produce anything directly besides knowledge is essential to pretty much all new technology. Radio could not have been developed without Maxwell's equations, which by themselves were not something you could sell.
Fortunately, not all government funding was cut. I've heard what's driving embryonic stem cell research these days is state funding.
If embryonic stem cells were the miracle cure that people have been claiming, you'd think there'd be plenty of private money for it.
See above. Private entities don't like to invest in research which is not a "sure thing," or won't yeild anything concrete besides advancement of knowledge, but that's usually the most important research.
Not to mention the amount of paperwork that required, ensuring that not so much as a 10 cent pipette tip purchased using federal funding was used for that. You know, because the best use of our researchers is filling out more forms, not doing research.
I don't think the sky being overcast and dog poop smelling like peppermint are ideals at all, let alone impossible ones.
Wow, that apperantly sounded serious to at least two people (a mod and happy head). For the record, I did not think he was advocating the destruction of the moon and the atmosphere, and I realize that would also be quite problematic. It was, how you say, a joke.
Gotta love the FDA. How long has this technology been around before they finally approved the first human tests of it? Did you know that if current FDA regulations had been in place at the time, neither penicillin nor aspirin would have ever been approved for human use?
The FDA also prevented Thalidomide from being sold wholesale in the country before the effects of it were known. Not the case in europe, as a result there were a lot of ugly birth defects.
Regulation is not going to be perfect ever, as we all learned in junior high, and have learned continuously since then. Still, I'd rather have an overly cautious and slow moving bureacracy investigating medicines and treatments than just hoping big pharmecuticals listen to their conscience. Mostly because they have none. Oversight is definitely needed.
I also liked the wording here
The first human embryonic stem cells were developed by Jamie Thomson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998.
It's true, the first human embryonic stem cells were made by Dr. Thomspon in 1998. Hard times for those of us born before 1998. We had to grow using animal embryonic stem cells. That's no way to make yourself.
... at least I thought it was funny.
Since cosmic rays are striking the earth all the time, and a decent percentage of them have a much higher energy level than anything the LHC can produce, we should have already seen such a phenomena.
Sorry if I annoy anyone with this question, but aren't there some big differences between the LHC and those cosmic rays? If they're EXACTLY the same type of reaction, and do happen all the time, then it's probably okay. If we're just talking about high-energy collisions, but, I don't know, the LHC is going to be doing it differently somehow, doesn't really prove much.
You can throw your lit cigar into the ocean and it will go out. Concluding that throwing your lit cigar into ANY liquid, including gasoline, is safe because you did it in the ocean would of course be ridiculous, since it's different materials.
Note that I know little to nothing about physics, and I'm not saying my metaphor is good for the situation, just good for illustrating a potential flaw in the logic.
While I think the number crunching has already proven to those worried that the LHC is not a threat, I do agree that "Let's find out" is some horribly flawed logic when talking about earth-destroying black holes, and should be modded funny, not insightful.
Groups of high energy particles striking each other is not rare in nature. It happens all the time, right in our own atmosphere, on the surface of the moon.
So if I understand you, shutting down the LHC is not enough to ensure the world will not end, we also have to destroy the moon and our atmosphere.
No, I've thought that for a long time. But I showed them, I simply downloaded a cracked version of their antivirus software! Sure, my computer promptly stopped working, but I'm sure that would have happened anyway. Correlation is not causation.
He was off because we were at a bar a few years ago, I was pretty hammered and started talking about how I was a ninja and would kill all spammers within 4 years. I guess he took me seriously. I also suggested he make a new form of windows called vista. Again, I'm sorry. I've learned my lesson and will not go out drinking with that dude anymore.
You joke like these things don't affect you,
No, I joke like the article headline was misleading, not like this isn't a serious deal. This is a serious deal, and overstating it waters it down. You read "NSA spied on everyone" and think "Oh my God, the government spied on me!" Many americans, if they read the article, would read that no, they didn't spy on everyone, they just had that ability and spied on news outlets, people they shouldn't have, but you yourself probably didn't get spied on, and their reaction (not saying it's a sensical or good one, just one many people are going to have) is "Oh, that's not what I thought, not interesting, what's Obama's daughters doing?"
In the end, the misleading title makes people care less about the still-very-important issue. That was my point, sorry for the little bit of humor that was apperantly itself misleading.
I understood what it meant, my point was that it was different from what the headline said (or at least implied.)
To make a pointless car metaphor, it's like if you're trying to sell a junked car, and you put in the ad "will run like new!" when it doesn't have an engine, your rationale being it will run like new once you put a new engine in it.
This is not the NSA spying on everyone, this is the NSA being ABLE to spy on everyone. They could have spied on me, yes, but as he pointed out in the article, they didn't spy on EVERYONE.
Gasp! They spied on everyone! No! My secrets!!!
So... they didn't really spy on everyone in the sense that they listened to my conversations so much as they COULD have.
Scary stuff, but the /. headline is horribly misleading.