Is it too late? It seems to me that this is pretty middle of the road for legal insanity. It would make rational sense that you couldn't just dismiss the case and avoid being punished, but it also seems rational that legal trolls wouldn't be allowed to do what they do in the first place. Logic has no place in courtrooms from what I can tell. What is the judge going to do? Are the lawyers going to get disbarred?
Google's CEO and most of the other morons walking the earth who will allow it. Not to excuse it, I just think it's kind of inevitable even were google to drop glass to focus on not cancelling google reader. People like to spy. I'll just be glad if the government doesn't go big brother with it, demanding warrantless access to everyone's virtual eye.
Yes, but we still need to figure out the other half of the problem of desalination, which is what to do with the high-salt brine. If you get 50% efficiency, as much water as you get out, you'll get out wastewater with 200% salt in it. In large volumes, you obviously can't store it or evaporate it off fast enough. Dumping it into the ocean will kill anything near the exhaust. And then there's still the problem of piping the water to cities.
It makes more sense to use this to filter out municipal waste water and re-use it for drinking water. It's right there where you need it, it's got less junk to get out than seawater, and there is less byproduct. The only problem with that is people don't like the idea of drinking their own sewage, even if it has been filtered well.
Not to be a wet graphene blanket: this is a very good thing, you're absolutely right that it will improve the standard of living worldwide if it pans out, and we do need better filtration technology. Just that we shouldn't forget the ecological concerns.
I doubt it will invalidate much research. Everyone who uses them is aware that HeLa cells aren't really "human" cells, all research should have been based on the understanding that the genome was a bloody mess. Most of the research I've seen on it has been about cell division, which it doesn't seem too messed up with.
That's not Ms. Lack's genome anymore. The summary says it has more than the usual number of chromosomes. Cancer cells generally lose the ability to maintain their genomes, they become very unstable, allowing a bizzare, short-term form of evolution to occur. More mutations allow the cancer to get better at proliferating and invading, at least right up until the host dies. Usually, anyway, HeLa is or was unique in that it managed to escape it's own doom, much like we might need to do with Earth.
Sorry, got off topic there. Anyway, cloning HeLa cells, as in putting the genome into a fertilized egg like Dolly the sheep, that would probably not make a complete embryo. I'm not familiar with HeLa's genome, but I think it's likely they've lost the ability to control cell division, cell death, and/or cell differentiation. You need those processes to make anything that looks like an embryo. You'd likely end up with just another petrie dish of HeLa cells. It would be a neat if ethically questionable experiment.
They still buy the lines of bullshit politicians sell and reality TV keeps growing in popularity.
They've always bought the lines though. There are specific points in history when the stakes became high enough that people woke up and paid attention, during those periods they may reject bullshit more often, you may be thinking of the vigorous public discourse during the revolutionary war or some other war and thinking we're dumber compared to that. But the normal state of people is to believe what they've been told by authority figures. At least now with the internet, it's becoming a lot easier to cross check what politicians say.
As for reality TV, I think it popularity is going back down, but anyway, reality TV is not really "stupid." It's entertainment, not in the same category as voting for politicians who explain that we need Jim Crow laws. I watched all of Jersey Shore while getting my PhD in cell biology.
Lastly, the distinction between smarter and more educated, I'm not sure it matters very much. Ignorance causes far more societal problems in my opinion than being unable to do complex maths in their head.
Overly broad rules aren't a good idea in the justice system, so it would be a mistake to say ALL non-violent crimes should have very short prison terms. But I dont' think OP was suggesting it be applied for all non-violent crimes.
In general, non-violent crimes shouldn't have prison time. Some of exceptional scale should, sure, but we lock up way too many people, despite the fact that violence is really low.
As consumers outside the boardroom, we don't know what the true story is, even if everyone WERE motivated to follow such events. These things are not crystal clear.
Even if it were as simple as "Company X is laying people off to pad their pockets, so buy from company Y instead," and consumers were still supporting company X, in what way does that absolve company X of anything?
The fact that people can get rich in this way suggests it needs to be regulated, not that everyone approves of it or it's okay to let it continue.
Well then you'd need to run something like 10 mph for SIX MINUTES to burn that off! NOT WORTH IT.
Okay, I was totally off, "about.com" lied to me. Or rather, I saw a number and wrote it down without seeing that meant a case or something. Time to go drown my sorrows with a can of delicious, nutritious mountain dew.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It would be a hell of a lot easier to just not drink the soda. You'll stop even craving it before too long, it's the caffeine that is addictive, not the soda or sugar. And the caffeine addiction gives you a headache if you go off of it, not heroin withdrawal induced seizures. If you can't take the time to go all biggest loser and spend 10 hours a day on a treadmill, you've got to change your diet. Eat the junk food if you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking you'll make up for it in your office chair.
They got axed? "All our energy into fewer products" sounds to me (someone who works in real science, not "tech") like you'd keep the people and move them to fewer products. I suppose energy here = money and products = shareholders?
I think you know damn well why they let the automakers run the test rather than spending government money to test the things themselves.
Hmm... it might be interesting to require testing to be done by the competitors. Probably woudn't solve much even if you required they not actually be part of the same Volkswagon or other corporate superfamily, but interesting.
I'm continually amazed at how much more effort and creativity people seem to put into shortcuts to money and various get rich quick schemes, rather than boring, honest work.
Suit A:"We're losing money and marketshare! What are we going to do"
Suit B: "The same thing we do every time"
Both in unison: "Layoffs and hire some more lobbyists!"
I was turned off of theoldreader because I went to the page, and... SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIAL MEDIA!!! See what your friends are reading! Sign in with facebook and goole plus and twitter and myspace!
I use RSS feeds mainly for research journals to watch for relevant papers as they come out. And... er... webcomics. Why the hell would I care to include my friends on either one of those? My friends are idiots. If I find a particular journal article relevant to them (or funny webcomic), I can post it to one of those various services.
Why does it seem like every RSS reader out there is trying to get me to merge it with facebook?
Step 1: Make a website that does something
Step 2: Integrate social media
Step 3: ???
Step 4: PROFIT!!!
I try to avoid companies that seem to have that plan.
Nice thought, but I think they know how many people are using it on a regular basis, and have probably figured out that if you're using it, you probably don't want to see it go away.
Idea: let's try an experiment next election and vote in the primaries for anyone who is willing to stand up to the police state.
I know most of you are convinced of the theory that voting is a sham, that the only candidates we're allowed to vote for in the general election are the same on issues that matter to you. I'm not quite clear as to the mechanism for how that theory works. Seems to me that the names on the ballot are picked by a small conspiracy of people, but those people aren't a shadowy board of puppetmasters, they're the few people who bother to drag their asses to vote in the primaries. Ron Paul could have gotten on the ballot, and I doubt he would have done this.
So how about we actually test it? If most people register and vote in the primary for someone who says "Enough, rights are more important than chasing boogeymen," and then we still don't get to vote for him or her to be president, then we can know for certain that voting is a waste of time, and can either move elsewhere or overthrow whoever it is yall think are pulling the strings. If we however do successfully elect someone who rolls back the police state, then we all win.
And if we once again fail to bother to vote in the primary for anyone who will uphold our rights, then maybe we should conclude that we've been getting the government that we deserve.
So then rather than paying for other people's sex, you'd have us pay a whole lot more for other people's religion? What am I saying, of course you would since it seems to be YOUR religion but not your contraceptives.
Moreover, when did tax dollars going to causes that your religion doesn't support become suppression of your religious freedom? Are there any religions out there that say condoms bad, but wars of aggression good? If not, then I can't fathom how you would complain about government providing contraceptives is hurting your religious freedom. The government is murdering innocent children on your dime. If your religion is okay with wars but not with other people having premarital sex, then I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for your concerns.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to what? Letting it stand without bulletproof constitutionality?
Is it too late? It seems to me that this is pretty middle of the road for legal insanity. It would make rational sense that you couldn't just dismiss the case and avoid being punished, but it also seems rational that legal trolls wouldn't be allowed to do what they do in the first place. Logic has no place in courtrooms from what I can tell. What is the judge going to do? Are the lawyers going to get disbarred?
Google's CEO and most of the other morons walking the earth who will allow it. Not to excuse it, I just think it's kind of inevitable even were google to drop glass to focus on not cancelling google reader. People like to spy. I'll just be glad if the government doesn't go big brother with it, demanding warrantless access to everyone's virtual eye.
Yes, but we still need to figure out the other half of the problem of desalination, which is what to do with the high-salt brine. If you get 50% efficiency, as much water as you get out, you'll get out wastewater with 200% salt in it. In large volumes, you obviously can't store it or evaporate it off fast enough. Dumping it into the ocean will kill anything near the exhaust. And then there's still the problem of piping the water to cities.
It makes more sense to use this to filter out municipal waste water and re-use it for drinking water. It's right there where you need it, it's got less junk to get out than seawater, and there is less byproduct. The only problem with that is people don't like the idea of drinking their own sewage, even if it has been filtered well.
Not to be a wet graphene blanket: this is a very good thing, you're absolutely right that it will improve the standard of living worldwide if it pans out, and we do need better filtration technology. Just that we shouldn't forget the ecological concerns.
Everyone DID assume it, so it wasn't exactly a high priority to figure out HOW messed up it was.
I doubt it will invalidate much research. Everyone who uses them is aware that HeLa cells aren't really "human" cells, all research should have been based on the understanding that the genome was a bloody mess. Most of the research I've seen on it has been about cell division, which it doesn't seem too messed up with.
That's not Ms. Lack's genome anymore. The summary says it has more than the usual number of chromosomes. Cancer cells generally lose the ability to maintain their genomes, they become very unstable, allowing a bizzare, short-term form of evolution to occur. More mutations allow the cancer to get better at proliferating and invading, at least right up until the host dies. Usually, anyway, HeLa is or was unique in that it managed to escape it's own doom, much like we might need to do with Earth.
Sorry, got off topic there. Anyway, cloning HeLa cells, as in putting the genome into a fertilized egg like Dolly the sheep, that would probably not make a complete embryo. I'm not familiar with HeLa's genome, but I think it's likely they've lost the ability to control cell division, cell death, and/or cell differentiation. You need those processes to make anything that looks like an embryo. You'd likely end up with just another petrie dish of HeLa cells. It would be a neat if ethically questionable experiment.
They still buy the lines of bullshit politicians sell and reality TV keeps growing in popularity.
They've always bought the lines though. There are specific points in history when the stakes became high enough that people woke up and paid attention, during those periods they may reject bullshit more often, you may be thinking of the vigorous public discourse during the revolutionary war or some other war and thinking we're dumber compared to that. But the normal state of people is to believe what they've been told by authority figures. At least now with the internet, it's becoming a lot easier to cross check what politicians say.
As for reality TV, I think it popularity is going back down, but anyway, reality TV is not really "stupid." It's entertainment, not in the same category as voting for politicians who explain that we need Jim Crow laws. I watched all of Jersey Shore while getting my PhD in cell biology.
Lastly, the distinction between smarter and more educated, I'm not sure it matters very much. Ignorance causes far more societal problems in my opinion than being unable to do complex maths in their head.
Overly broad rules aren't a good idea in the justice system, so it would be a mistake to say ALL non-violent crimes should have very short prison terms. But I dont' think OP was suggesting it be applied for all non-violent crimes.
In general, non-violent crimes shouldn't have prison time. Some of exceptional scale should, sure, but we lock up way too many people, despite the fact that violence is really low.
Hell, I'm still using my S2 skyrocket. It's like the stone age.
Why are you making excuses for such companies?
As consumers outside the boardroom, we don't know what the true story is, even if everyone WERE motivated to follow such events. These things are not crystal clear.
Even if it were as simple as "Company X is laying people off to pad their pockets, so buy from company Y instead," and consumers were still supporting company X, in what way does that absolve company X of anything?
The fact that people can get rich in this way suggests it needs to be regulated, not that everyone approves of it or it's okay to let it continue.
Well then you'd need to run something like 10 mph for SIX MINUTES to burn that off! NOT WORTH IT.
Okay, I was totally off, "about.com" lied to me. Or rather, I saw a number and wrote it down without seeing that meant a case or something. Time to go drown my sorrows with a can of delicious, nutritious mountain dew.
Exercise as the main feature of staying fit is also a cop-out even if you DO go to a gym. One can of mountain dew has 700 Calories. Assuming you're jogging at 5 mph, that one can is going to take you an hour of jogging to burn off.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It would be a hell of a lot easier to just not drink the soda. You'll stop even craving it before too long, it's the caffeine that is addictive, not the soda or sugar. And the caffeine addiction gives you a headache if you go off of it, not heroin withdrawal induced seizures. If you can't take the time to go all biggest loser and spend 10 hours a day on a treadmill, you've got to change your diet. Eat the junk food if you want, but don't delude yourself into thinking you'll make up for it in your office chair.
They got axed? "All our energy into fewer products" sounds to me (someone who works in real science, not "tech") like you'd keep the people and move them to fewer products. I suppose energy here = money and products = shareholders?
I think you know damn well why they let the automakers run the test rather than spending government money to test the things themselves.
Hmm... it might be interesting to require testing to be done by the competitors. Probably woudn't solve much even if you required they not actually be part of the same Volkswagon or other corporate superfamily, but interesting.
So then it appears that is not actually ALL you want: you want something else that precludes the Jetta.
I'm continually amazed at how much more effort and creativity people seem to put into shortcuts to money and various get rich quick schemes, rather than boring, honest work.
Suit A:"We're losing money and marketshare! What are we going to do"
Suit B: "The same thing we do every time"
Both in unison: "Layoffs and hire some more lobbyists!"
I can recite all the digits of pi, but only in Indiana: 3.2.
I was turned off of theoldreader because I went to the page, and... SOCIAL SOCIAL SOCIAL MEDIA!!! See what your friends are reading! Sign in with facebook and goole plus and twitter and myspace!
I use RSS feeds mainly for research journals to watch for relevant papers as they come out. And... er... webcomics. Why the hell would I care to include my friends on either one of those? My friends are idiots. If I find a particular journal article relevant to them (or funny webcomic), I can post it to one of those various services.
Why does it seem like every RSS reader out there is trying to get me to merge it with facebook?
Step 1: Make a website that does something
Step 2: Integrate social media
Step 3: ???
Step 4: PROFIT!!!
I try to avoid companies that seem to have that plan.
Nice thought, but I think they know how many people are using it on a regular basis, and have probably figured out that if you're using it, you probably don't want to see it go away.
Idea: let's try an experiment next election and vote in the primaries for anyone who is willing to stand up to the police state.
I know most of you are convinced of the theory that voting is a sham, that the only candidates we're allowed to vote for in the general election are the same on issues that matter to you. I'm not quite clear as to the mechanism for how that theory works. Seems to me that the names on the ballot are picked by a small conspiracy of people, but those people aren't a shadowy board of puppetmasters, they're the few people who bother to drag their asses to vote in the primaries. Ron Paul could have gotten on the ballot, and I doubt he would have done this.
So how about we actually test it? If most people register and vote in the primary for someone who says "Enough, rights are more important than chasing boogeymen," and then we still don't get to vote for him or her to be president, then we can know for certain that voting is a waste of time, and can either move elsewhere or overthrow whoever it is yall think are pulling the strings. If we however do successfully elect someone who rolls back the police state, then we all win.
And if we once again fail to bother to vote in the primary for anyone who will uphold our rights, then maybe we should conclude that we've been getting the government that we deserve.
So then rather than paying for other people's sex, you'd have us pay a whole lot more for other people's religion? What am I saying, of course you would since it seems to be YOUR religion but not your contraceptives.
Moreover, when did tax dollars going to causes that your religion doesn't support become suppression of your religious freedom? Are there any religions out there that say condoms bad, but wars of aggression good? If not, then I can't fathom how you would complain about government providing contraceptives is hurting your religious freedom. The government is murdering innocent children on your dime. If your religion is okay with wars but not with other people having premarital sex, then I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for your concerns.
Oh, and to force people to pay for other people's sex.
Cheaper than paying for other people's children, which you will do if you don't pay for their contraceptives. Experimental proof comes from Texas in this case. Spend 73 million on birth control or spend upwards of 200 million in welfare for the kids.
And the government isn't for regulating sex.
When did they do that. Nothing GP said indicated that.