I guess NASA was using MS Excel to do their calculations.
Or faced political pressure to predict something other than a fairly decent chance of doom. I mean really: does anyone think a 13-year-old outsmarted every scientist at NASA?
Lose your job over this? Probably not necessary. But I would recommend documenting everything you've noticed and told your boss in a detailed set of memos so that you're safe if an ethics committee ever investigates. If that's what you're worried about, of course.
Going the "get fired" route is probably a really bad idea under normal circumstances as you're likely to be passed up for jobs in the future for "lack of loyalty" or whatever the hell they're calling it now. Publishing anonymously, like on Wikileaks, would be better if you really feel the need to publicize it.
You're right, we need a new name for this sort of thing....hmm....well, the government will be putting up a sort of metaphorical "wall"....and the people who intrude will get burned, so "fire" would be good...maybe "Wall-Fire"...or "Fire-Wall"? Naw, it'll never catch on. I'll keep thinking...
This may be similar with beliefs of Physicist Neil Turok of Cambridge University who has theorized about a cyclic universe, constantly expanding and compressing.
I wouldn't. Even with that much oil it still is going to run out someday. If anything we should leave it alone for now to ensure that we don't end up with massive shortages as we transition to alternative fuel sources.
For research, yes, we will probably need to bleed alligators. What I meant is that after we isolate the proteins it will probably be more practical to synthesize the individual proteins (not the whole blood).
I'm aware of that. I originally wrote it using gasoline for the sake of showing the mathematics, then, realizing that all anyone would do is argue all of the factors concerning the price of gasoline while ignoring the point, I switched the word to water without actually intending to reflect real values. Really, I could have just said "X", where "X" is a reference only.
And the whole point was just to show that I hadn't made a mistake in the math when I made the joke...
and do not want to be misconstrued as a proponent of narcotic legalization
Actually, I wouldn't mind that as I am a proponent of narcotics legalization despite not being a user myself. Again, different debate, different time.
As to the second thing: point taken. We are in a drug culture and it is a bit of a problem. But certain ailments won't simply go away by themselves. I feel there is a big difference between the relatively-useless-but-heavily-advertised drugs and those used to help combat HIV and certain infections that often kill already hospitalized patients. And that's what I intended to highlight.
Price inflation? 'Fraid not, sir: If a gallon of water cost $0.25 in 1970 (I don't know the actual price) and it costs $1.50 in 2008, then $1.50 now is $0.25 in 1970 dollars (assuming the actual cost of water in terms of everything else did not change).
Whoa, man. We're talking proteins in the blood...after the initial research it will probably be more practical to produce them synthetically.
I take it you're not a fan of medical research as it runs opposed to the natural order of things. But if we are in relative control of our own evolution at the moment, why should we allow our species to disappear? If the whole point of life is to propagate, and we have mechanisms in place to accomplish this basic task better, wouldn't it be against nature to do the opposite?
I find your comment interesting for another reason: you typed your comment on a computer, right? One of the byproducts of modern eco-destructive society? And you likely live in a modern house, use electricity, eat those "pork sandwiches", and probably have benefited from past medical research. The hypocrisy is stunning.
I meant medical drugs...though I do agree with the sentiment and making certain drugs illegal causes more net harm than net good. Different discussion entirely, though.
no, it appears that they found the link to show that if you are an avid gamer, you are probably autistic. This is explained in the end of the article.
My comment was in reference to the "ruthless" gene article discussed yesterday, and I was pointing out the ridiculousness of correlation being interpreted as causation.
No "WHOOSH" needed...I get the joke. But there is an interesting point to all this. It's getting harder and harder to actually buy good music as so few artists are album-oriented anymore. People like to decry the popularity of single-song services like iTunes or say that they charge too much for albums, but the reality is that the popular artists all produce albums with only one good track followed by a bunch of shit. And then they want you to buy the album? Try producing worthwhile songs, and then we'll talk. If the RIAA wonders why people are "cherry-picking", they need only look no further than what they're pushing.
So yes, I buy music, but not from iTunes. I've found that buying CDs secondhand covers all of my needs, and for any singles I want to hear I turn to services such as last.fm with a business model that won't be dead in a few years. And the artists will survive...well, maybe not most of the pop stars or the rappers, but the rest...
Slashdot Mirror
Or faced political pressure to predict something other than a fairly decent chance of doom. I mean really: does anyone think a 13-year-old outsmarted every scientist at NASA?
Because they're "the suits" and can afford it.
Lose your job over this? Probably not necessary. But I would recommend documenting everything you've noticed and told your boss in a detailed set of memos so that you're safe if an ethics committee ever investigates. If that's what you're worried about, of course.
Going the "get fired" route is probably a really bad idea under normal circumstances as you're likely to be passed up for jobs in the future for "lack of loyalty" or whatever the hell they're calling it now. Publishing anonymously, like on Wikileaks, would be better if you really feel the need to publicize it.
You're right, we need a new name for this sort of thing....hmm....well, the government will be putting up a sort of metaphorical "wall"....and the people who intrude will get burned, so "fire" would be good...maybe "Wall-Fire"...or "Fire-Wall"? Naw, it'll never catch on. I'll keep thinking...
Most...boring...video...ever...
That's only a problem if you actually want to watch Robocop, Twin Peaks, or La Planete Savauge...
More specifically, he believed in the "cosmic religious feeling"...not necessarily God or a God-like figure.
Or Hindu belief...
I wouldn't. Even with that much oil it still is going to run out someday. If anything we should leave it alone for now to ensure that we don't end up with massive shortages as we transition to alternative fuel sources.
For research, yes, we will probably need to bleed alligators. What I meant is that after we isolate the proteins it will probably be more practical to synthesize the individual proteins (not the whole blood).
Saw that coming...
I'm aware of that. I originally wrote it using gasoline for the sake of showing the mathematics, then, realizing that all anyone would do is argue all of the factors concerning the price of gasoline while ignoring the point, I switched the word to water without actually intending to reflect real values. Really, I could have just said "X", where "X" is a reference only.
And the whole point was just to show that I hadn't made a mistake in the math when I made the joke...
hmm...I meant for that to be a joke. Oh well, I'm not responsible for what the mods decide to do with it.
Actually, I wouldn't mind that as I am a proponent of narcotics legalization despite not being a user myself. Again, different debate, different time.
As to the second thing: point taken. We are in a drug culture and it is a bit of a problem. But certain ailments won't simply go away by themselves. I feel there is a big difference between the relatively-useless-but-heavily-advertised drugs and those used to help combat HIV and certain infections that often kill already hospitalized patients. And that's what I intended to highlight.
Price inflation? 'Fraid not, sir: If a gallon of water cost $0.25 in 1970 (I don't know the actual price) and it costs $1.50 in 2008, then $1.50 now is $0.25 in 1970 dollars (assuming the actual cost of water in terms of everything else did not change).
With inflation that will be about $4 in 2008 dollars by 2011.
Whoa, man. We're talking proteins in the blood...after the initial research it will probably be more practical to produce them synthetically.
I take it you're not a fan of medical research as it runs opposed to the natural order of things. But if we are in relative control of our own evolution at the moment, why should we allow our species to disappear? If the whole point of life is to propagate, and we have mechanisms in place to accomplish this basic task better, wouldn't it be against nature to do the opposite?
I find your comment interesting for another reason: you typed your comment on a computer, right? One of the byproducts of modern eco-destructive society? And you likely live in a modern house, use electricity, eat those "pork sandwiches", and probably have benefited from past medical research. The hypocrisy is stunning.
I meant medical drugs...though I do agree with the sentiment and making certain drugs illegal causes more net harm than net good. Different discussion entirely, though.
The fact that people will misuse drugs does not mean we shouldn't make them available. If you read TFA you'll see:
Their previous research also suggests that blood proteins may help fight HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.I'd say the possible faster introduction of superbugs may be worth the risk if we can at least try.
My comment was in reference to the "ruthless" gene article discussed yesterday, and I was pointing out the ridiculousness of correlation being interpreted as causation.
Incredible! What else can they do with this? Maybe through this experiment they've found the link between the "fun" and "happy" genes among gamers!
But then it wouldn't be the press. Since when has scientific thinking had a place in mainstream journalism?
For $150, there had better be none. And they'd better give me a butler and a diamond-studded modem.
Actually, yes. I do.
No "WHOOSH" needed...I get the joke. But there is an interesting point to all this. It's getting harder and harder to actually buy good music as so few artists are album-oriented anymore. People like to decry the popularity of single-song services like iTunes or say that they charge too much for albums, but the reality is that the popular artists all produce albums with only one good track followed by a bunch of shit. And then they want you to buy the album? Try producing worthwhile songs, and then we'll talk. If the RIAA wonders why people are "cherry-picking", they need only look no further than what they're pushing.
So yes, I buy music, but not from iTunes. I've found that buying CDs secondhand covers all of my needs, and for any singles I want to hear I turn to services such as last.fm with a business model that won't be dead in a few years. And the artists will survive...well, maybe not most of the pop stars or the rappers, but the rest...
Gives a new meaning to the term "end user"...