Thanks.:) That was from the "climax" of Plan 9 from Outer Space. It's worth seeing precisely once. More than once and you come away feeling less whole than you started out.
For the unenlightened: Unbelievable, Unexplainable, Disastrously Doubly-Long Redundant Long Redundant Bastard Acronym. (It's a "bastard acronym" because it's actually an initialism, and will give you extra lives if you recite it.)
Take a can of your gasoline. Say this can of gasoline is the sun. Now, you spread a thin line of it to a ball, representing the earth. Now, the gasoline represents the sunlight, the sun particles. Here we saturate the ball with the gasoline, the sunlight. Then we put a flame to the ball. The flame will speedily travel around the earth, back along the line of gasoline to the can, or the sun itself. It will explode this source and spread to every place that gasoline, our sunlight, touches. Explode the sunlight here, gentlemen, you explode the universe. Explode the sunlight here and a chain reaction will occur direct to the sun itself and to all the planets that sunlight touches, to every planet in the universe.
Woah, woah, hold up. First of all, there is absolutely no way that all SNPs can contribute to diseases. The average difference between two people is something like 3 million SNPs; that is, at 3 million out of 3.1 billion positions in a human genome, two people of the same sex will have different values. Most of those differences are insignificant because the genome is built to be resilient to changes: (a) several amino acids have multiple representations that prevent some of the most common mutations from affecting their sequence, (b) the exact value of many amino acids is insignificant because they merely provide structural filler, making some codon missense mutations irrelevant, (c) many RNA elements have similar nonspecificity, (d) variation in function of either DNA, RNA, or protein elements may not amount to a detectable difference, (e) despite the recent discovery by the ENCODE project that as much as 80% of the genome may have some function, much of that appears to be extremely non-sequence-specific anyway; a significant chunk of the genome just provides scaffolding so that more important parts are easily accessible for transcription.
Second, it only takes a handful of rapidly-changing features to uniquely identify people. Seven billion people require just over 32 bits of information to specify; accounting for redundancy you can get a very small error rate with about half that. Given that we know of millions upon millions of SNPs, the probability of selecting 32 SNPs that are linked to actual disease is infinitesimal.
Third, I got it wrong; CODIS uses a different genetic marker called a short tandem repeat, which is a form of mutation that flips particularly frequently because the DNA replication machinery finds it very repetitive and has a high chance of slipping forward or backward while duplicating it. These regions are even less likely to be of medical importance because of their common variability. As it stands, the likelihood of a wrongful CODIS identification is non-zero, even between two families, because they only use 13 markers consistently. The one known case where one marker was linked to a disease was, quite simply, very unlikely. As an example, the VWA marker exists in a gene associated with a rare disease but has nothing to do with it.
You misundertand: those two things are miles apart in the eyes of lawmakers. Border stops are justifiable in their eyes because of security paranoia and constituents who want to be safe. Genetic screening gets accusations of racism, fascism, and eugenics. It's absolutely reprehensible and an extremely easy target for their opponents. No one endorses that.
Moreover, genetic screening by companies of employees has little or no chance to improve profits: as a personality test, it would undermine the cult of the job interview (as well as being scientifically bogus), and as a medical test, it violates the ADA. No one in Washington has the guts to sneak around anti-discrimination legislation because it's too obviously an attack on core American values. Only a crisis can enable that; otherwise they lose face in the legislature and the support of their constituents—in this case, from the right because they value personal freedom, and from the left because they value inclusiveness.
Try not to be so cynical that you can't even detect blatant self interest.
The law on genetic discrimination by companies is extremely aggressive in the US. You can read all about it here. Opposing it or circumventing it would be political suicide, akin to racial or sex discrimination. You forget that the kind of crap actually pulled by the police and intelligence sectors in the US remains in the iffy grey zone; the information this article is talking about isn't even (very) medically sensitive, just a sorta-unique-ish identifier, like fingerprints. Medical information is not being exchanged.
The world is not actually quite as horrible as you're gloomily projecting.
You're asking why a country polarized in every conceivable way over every conceivable issue can't spare sympathy for those it has already declared evil. It's just not going to happen.
Meanwhile, the UK has almost eliminated women's prison due to low volume and Norway's rehabilitation program is so good that their reoffending rate is below 30%.
Unless something's changed in the past year, forensics does not retain medically-sensitive genetic information. They pick up on random, fast-changing mutations called SNPs which are specifically chosen so that they don't reveal medical information. There was a kerfuffle when it was discovered that one of them might be linked to schizophrenia. The data retention policies are stupidly thuggish, like every other component of US law enforcement, but your medical insurance is not in danger.
There are several things wrong with your statements:
1. A politician is not subject to the same liberties. If you are serving the people, you have a duty to adopt a more neutral stance. He read the poem during a speech when he was a mayor.
2. Not being an American, I'm used to the idea of laws against hate speech. I don't believe anyone should have the right to publicly denounce another group of people, encourage others to, or claim supremacy of their ethnic group or religion.
3. "Freedom of expression" is a legal right. Under Turkish law, what Erdogan said did not qualify as protected speech. While the UN does not require member states to be very stringent about what is banned (Article 20(2), ICCPR), it does recognize and oppose other forms.
4. Neither I nor anyone else in the comment chain you replied to either endorsed or condemned his actions, although I admit that I initially misunderstood them, so you have no way of knowing whether or not anyone is "up in arms." That being said, neutrality is the most appropriate response when dealing with a clash of cultures far removed from one's own experience to avoid bias caused by hasty conclusions, as I've already demonstrated. You may want to be slower to label people part of "the Slashdot hivemind."
Pretty much, although note that the Turkish definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" are almost opposites of the values implied by such labels in the US. The Turks are trying to conserve their secular, inclusionist democracy.
I apologise for saying that actually; I misread what appeared to be a criticism of radical Islam but was actually an even more extreme endorsement of it:
He was given a ten-month prison sentence (of which he served less than four months, from 24 March 1999 to 27 July 1999)[19] for reciting a poem in Siirt in December 1997, which, under article 312/2 of the Turkish penal code was regarded as an incitement to commit an offense and incitement to religious or racial hatred.[20] It included verses translated as "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...."[8] The aforementioned verses, however, are not in the original version of the poem. The poem was from a work written by Ziya Gökalp, a pan-Turkish activist of the early 20th century.[5] Erdoan claimed the poem had been approved by the education ministry to be published in textbooks.[21] With the conviction, Erdoan was forced to give up his mayoral position. The conviction also stipulated a political ban, which prevented him from participating in parliamentary elections. He completed his sentence on 24 July 1999.
It sounds like a condemnation, but was actually in support of such things.
That all being said, his other policy stances are sufficiently strong that there are apparently many conservatives who support him, but don't fall for the "these are minority groups who are just mad democracy didn't take their side" shtick: he got 34% of the vote, resulting in more than a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Sounds like some serious gerrymandering to me.
He was once jailed for opposing religious extremism (albeit somewhat crudely), ended a war with the Kurds by enacting laws encouraging tolerance, opposes the Syrian regime, and improved relations with Greece. Turkey is bizarro land: the conservatives are interested in relatively secular Westernization, and the force of change it opposes is religious. Even if he's forceful or brutish, I think most people here would actually support him.
A monopoly must always strive to slightly outdo itself, so that it may motivate its captive market to continue consuming. Regardless of the technical challenges inherent in improving performance now, a 10% improvement really says "here's something we can force the next cycle of bleeding-edge adopters to take up."
Well, that's what the rule's for; to prevent students from milling through county fairs in order to qualify for the state fair. (Perhaps the idea is that it would let a student with a lot of funding go into a low-income county and exercise an unfair advantage? Although that would just even itself out at the state level anyway...) In this case, though, the student was entering into fairs in two different states, (if you consider Wyoming and South Dakota different) and the rule wasn't worded in a way that considered that. The person responsible was quietly let go, though, so... yeah.
This story has nothing to do with the kid's project, if anyone was wondering.
It's an interesting story, and it certainly does seem to fit Aspergers-like ASD symptoms. The confession that he actually did ultimately make fits even better with that diagnosis than the total remorselessness you suggested, I think—but the most telltale thing is that he lost faith in the church over a relatively minor breach of trust, While not generally very sympathetic people, Aspergers (and I'm going to keep using that name because it's more specific, even if no longer medically standard) patients tend to be very principled, and honesty in communication is by far the most important judge of character for them.
That would be pretty prolific, considering that only 10.4 million people died in concentration and death camps in Europe in the Holocaust. There were also ten or so Polish camps, resulting in quite a few senior-level necks being hung at Nuremberg. Anything else you remember?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, don't fret; I work with the cutting edge stuff in the same area every day. Legislative forces keep that particular privacy invasion at bay.
Thanks. :) That was from the "climax" of Plan 9 from Outer Space. It's worth seeing precisely once. More than once and you come away feeling less whole than you started out.
For the unenlightened: Unbelievable, Unexplainable, Disastrously Doubly-Long Redundant Long Redundant Bastard Acronym. (It's a "bastard acronym" because it's actually an initialism, and will give you extra lives if you recite it.)
Take a can of your gasoline. Say this can of gasoline is the sun. Now, you spread a thin line of it to a ball, representing the earth. Now, the gasoline represents the sunlight, the sun particles. Here we saturate the ball with the gasoline, the sunlight. Then we put a flame to the ball. The flame will speedily travel around the earth, back along the line of gasoline to the can, or the sun itself. It will explode this source and spread to every place that gasoline, our sunlight, touches. Explode the sunlight here, gentlemen, you explode the universe. Explode the sunlight here and a chain reaction will occur direct to the sun itself and to all the planets that sunlight touches, to every planet in the universe.
Woah, woah, hold up. First of all, there is absolutely no way that all SNPs can contribute to diseases. The average difference between two people is something like 3 million SNPs; that is, at 3 million out of 3.1 billion positions in a human genome, two people of the same sex will have different values. Most of those differences are insignificant because the genome is built to be resilient to changes: (a) several amino acids have multiple representations that prevent some of the most common mutations from affecting their sequence, (b) the exact value of many amino acids is insignificant because they merely provide structural filler, making some codon missense mutations irrelevant, (c) many RNA elements have similar nonspecificity, (d) variation in function of either DNA, RNA, or protein elements may not amount to a detectable difference, (e) despite the recent discovery by the ENCODE project that as much as 80% of the genome may have some function, much of that appears to be extremely non-sequence-specific anyway; a significant chunk of the genome just provides scaffolding so that more important parts are easily accessible for transcription.
Second, it only takes a handful of rapidly-changing features to uniquely identify people. Seven billion people require just over 32 bits of information to specify; accounting for redundancy you can get a very small error rate with about half that. Given that we know of millions upon millions of SNPs, the probability of selecting 32 SNPs that are linked to actual disease is infinitesimal.
Third, I got it wrong; CODIS uses a different genetic marker called a short tandem repeat, which is a form of mutation that flips particularly frequently because the DNA replication machinery finds it very repetitive and has a high chance of slipping forward or backward while duplicating it. These regions are even less likely to be of medical importance because of their common variability. As it stands, the likelihood of a wrongful CODIS identification is non-zero, even between two families, because they only use 13 markers consistently. The one known case where one marker was linked to a disease was, quite simply, very unlikely. As an example, the VWA marker exists in a gene associated with a rare disease but has nothing to do with it.
You misundertand: those two things are miles apart in the eyes of lawmakers. Border stops are justifiable in their eyes because of security paranoia and constituents who want to be safe. Genetic screening gets accusations of racism, fascism, and eugenics. It's absolutely reprehensible and an extremely easy target for their opponents. No one endorses that.
Moreover, genetic screening by companies of employees has little or no chance to improve profits: as a personality test, it would undermine the cult of the job interview (as well as being scientifically bogus), and as a medical test, it violates the ADA. No one in Washington has the guts to sneak around anti-discrimination legislation because it's too obviously an attack on core American values. Only a crisis can enable that; otherwise they lose face in the legislature and the support of their constituents—in this case, from the right because they value personal freedom, and from the left because they value inclusiveness.
Try not to be so cynical that you can't even detect blatant self interest.
The law on genetic discrimination by companies is extremely aggressive in the US. You can read all about it here. Opposing it or circumventing it would be political suicide, akin to racial or sex discrimination. You forget that the kind of crap actually pulled by the police and intelligence sectors in the US remains in the iffy grey zone; the information this article is talking about isn't even (very) medically sensitive, just a sorta-unique-ish identifier, like fingerprints. Medical information is not being exchanged.
The world is not actually quite as horrible as you're gloomily projecting.
You're asking why a country polarized in every conceivable way over every conceivable issue can't spare sympathy for those it has already declared evil. It's just not going to happen.
Meanwhile, the UK has almost eliminated women's prison due to low volume and Norway's rehabilitation program is so good that their reoffending rate is below 30%.
Unless something's changed in the past year, forensics does not retain medically-sensitive genetic information. They pick up on random, fast-changing mutations called SNPs which are specifically chosen so that they don't reveal medical information. There was a kerfuffle when it was discovered that one of them might be linked to schizophrenia. The data retention policies are stupidly thuggish, like every other component of US law enforcement, but your medical insurance is not in danger.
There are several things wrong with your statements:
1. A politician is not subject to the same liberties. If you are serving the people, you have a duty to adopt a more neutral stance. He read the poem during a speech when he was a mayor.
2. Not being an American, I'm used to the idea of laws against hate speech. I don't believe anyone should have the right to publicly denounce another group of people, encourage others to, or claim supremacy of their ethnic group or religion.
3. "Freedom of expression" is a legal right. Under Turkish law, what Erdogan said did not qualify as protected speech. While the UN does not require member states to be very stringent about what is banned (Article 20(2), ICCPR), it does recognize and oppose other forms.
4. Neither I nor anyone else in the comment chain you replied to either endorsed or condemned his actions, although I admit that I initially misunderstood them, so you have no way of knowing whether or not anyone is "up in arms." That being said, neutrality is the most appropriate response when dealing with a clash of cultures far removed from one's own experience to avoid bias caused by hasty conclusions, as I've already demonstrated. You may want to be slower to label people part of "the Slashdot hivemind."
He added a verse onto the poem that was not in the original. The author of the poem, Ziya Gokalp, opposed Islamism.
You're late to the show; I already apologised and corrected myself. Sorry!
Good point—although it still discredits the statement that his opposition is a minority.
Pretty much, although note that the Turkish definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" are almost opposites of the values implied by such labels in the US. The Turks are trying to conserve their secular, inclusionist democracy.
I apologise for saying that actually; I misread what appeared to be a criticism of radical Islam but was actually an even more extreme endorsement of it:
He was given a ten-month prison sentence (of which he served less than four months, from 24 March 1999 to 27 July 1999)[19] for reciting a poem in Siirt in December 1997, which, under article 312/2 of the Turkish penal code was regarded as an incitement to commit an offense and incitement to religious or racial hatred.[20] It included verses translated as "The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers...."[8] The aforementioned verses, however, are not in the original version of the poem. The poem was from a work written by Ziya Gökalp, a pan-Turkish activist of the early 20th century.[5] Erdoan claimed the poem had been approved by the education ministry to be published in textbooks.[21] With the conviction, Erdoan was forced to give up his mayoral position. The conviction also stipulated a political ban, which prevented him from participating in parliamentary elections. He completed his sentence on 24 July 1999.
It sounds like a condemnation, but was actually in support of such things.
That all being said, his other policy stances are sufficiently strong that there are apparently many conservatives who support him, but don't fall for the "these are minority groups who are just mad democracy didn't take their side" shtick: he got 34% of the vote, resulting in more than a two-thirds parliamentary majority. Sounds like some serious gerrymandering to me.
...nevermind; total mixed bag. Still, he's done a couple things right.
He was once jailed for opposing religious extremism (albeit somewhat crudely), ended a war with the Kurds by enacting laws encouraging tolerance, opposes the Syrian regime, and improved relations with Greece. Turkey is bizarro land: the conservatives are interested in relatively secular Westernization, and the force of change it opposes is religious. Even if he's forceful or brutish, I think most people here would actually support him.
Spoiler: they didn't show any AR in the second half, either. If it makes you feel any better they did say it was a conceptual demo.
A monopoly must always strive to slightly outdo itself, so that it may motivate its captive market to continue consuming. Regardless of the technical challenges inherent in improving performance now, a 10% improvement really says "here's something we can force the next cycle of bleeding-edge adopters to take up."
The hype may be the most amazing thing to happen to the tech industry in years.
Well, that's what the rule's for; to prevent students from milling through county fairs in order to qualify for the state fair. (Perhaps the idea is that it would let a student with a lot of funding go into a low-income county and exercise an unfair advantage? Although that would just even itself out at the state level anyway...) In this case, though, the student was entering into fairs in two different states, (if you consider Wyoming and South Dakota different) and the rule wasn't worded in a way that considered that. The person responsible was quietly let go, though, so... yeah.
This story has nothing to do with the kid's project, if anyone was wondering.
You think you're very clever, young man, very clever. But it's statistics all the way down!
It's an interesting story, and it certainly does seem to fit Aspergers-like ASD symptoms. The confession that he actually did ultimately make fits even better with that diagnosis than the total remorselessness you suggested, I think—but the most telltale thing is that he lost faith in the church over a relatively minor breach of trust, While not generally very sympathetic people, Aspergers (and I'm going to keep using that name because it's more specific, even if no longer medically standard) patients tend to be very principled, and honesty in communication is by far the most important judge of character for them.
That would be pretty prolific, considering that only 10.4 million people died in concentration and death camps in Europe in the Holocaust. There were also ten or so Polish camps, resulting in quite a few senior-level necks being hung at Nuremberg. Anything else you remember?
Saying X is "a predictor for" Y is common statistics jargon. Just type "a predictor for" into Google and you'll drown in hits.