It's not for lack of evolutionary pressure. Plenty of vessels and orifices would benefit by a native layer of teflon. Imagine the predator prey relations in a world of teflon skin. Some of the room temp liquid CFCs would superficially make a good replacement for that fluid in the bone joints (sorry not doc don't know its technical name).
Synovial fluid. Sidenote, evolution tends to not reinvent the wheel, even if reinventing the wheel is entirely possible. Even if CFCs were possible to chemically make inside the body, I think evolution would tend to tweak it's fluid, protein, and connective tissue to make synovial fluid rather than make a new pathway for making CFCs.
The human brain for example is in many ways just a reptilian brain with some add-ons. Important ones, but the brain was not totally overhauled.
So I think the fact that we aren't producing CFCs is not just a chemical constraint, it's also a historical constraint.
That is the catch. It has not worked so far in people, or animals for that matter. But $scientist speculates it might.
Slashdot: news for nerds who evidently aren't interested in scientific research?
I suppose "nerd" has come to mean "I got an iphone 5!!!!" in popular usage, but I expect better of slashdot. This is a promising start and is very interesting. Even if it doesn't work in humans for the flu, it's still groundbreaking research in a very important subject area.
Till more data comes through we should soak the RNA in snake oil before freeze drying it.
NO!!! RNA is super unstable! You can't even put it in untreated water! Snake oil OR freeze drying it will render it completely useless! Hell, if you LOOK at RNA the wrong way, it will fall apart.
I really don't understand what your cynicism is based on. All established industries have an interest in preventing better products from replacing theirs, but how effective is that usually? I don't drive a horse and buggy.
Specific to the pharmecutical industry, if it were possible for them to prevent effective cures, why would we have new effective vaccines ever? HPV, chicken pox, those are vaccines they didn't have when I was a kid. Tylenol would have an interest in keeping kids getting chicken pox, yet they and others don't appear to have even tried to stop that. All the pharmecuticals' bottom lines would have benefitted from them selling treatment for cervical cancer, the HPV vaccine is much cheaper, yet we have that.
Big Pharma may try to get it banned, they certainly could hold it up. The RIAA and MPAA are fighting hard to keep their obsolete industries going, and are doing it fairly effectively. But "It will never happen because they'll lose money" sounds way too tinfoil hat to me. Especially when there's a lot of money to be made selling it, and not all pharmecuticals sell the current flu shots.
But in the example, Rodney King, the context was irrelevant as far as the police go. It explains WHY the cops were so mad that they beat on him after he was down. Realistically, I don't expect cops to be saints and immune to anger, but as far as standards for law enforcement, "He was being a complete asshole and endangering everyone" is not a valid reason.
It's poor journalism though, you're right. And that extra context might have provoked less of an angry response from the community. The riots were at least partly the media's fault because of that. But the context does not excuse the cops. We must have high standards for law enforcement. Especially in Illinois.
My love of steam has, if possible, increased because of this. They didn't call it cyber monday, they just had an autumn sale. And their sales are always real sales.
If you think that Social Security or Medicare are "earned benefits", that boat sailed 50 years ago; the Supreme Court disagreed with you in 1960 (Flemming v. Nestor).
If the wiki summary is correct, that found that you weren't in a legal contract for social security, so legally you can't sue to get it back. That doesn't mean you didn't earn it from working, in the sense that in a sane world it SHOULD be yours.
Recently, President (George W.) Bush wanted to give each worker a real retirement account where the worker would have ownership, but your side threw an epic fit over the proposal (for transparently bad reasons).
I'm being lazy and not googling it, but I thought he was talking about putting social security money into the stock market. I also thought I remembered hearing that had he done that, in hindsight with the recession, some retirees might be doing better, but most would have seen a significant decrease in their funds already, as opposed to social security still continuing.
If you think bringing one or two hundred thousand deployed servicemen and servicewomen back home -- given the general economic climate, with the likely effect of dumping either them or others into unemployment -- would solve the budget deficit, you again haven't given the matter enough thought.
I thought he was referencing how much we're paying for them to be over there, not implying we suffer from a shortage of workers. Though I'm not sure what the "workforce" bit was about.
Could you please point me to proof of a single documented case of one species naturally evolving into another one during the thousands of years of recorded history? Thanks!
(Ugh... I feel sick saying that. And I guess I'm assuming AC is not a creationist. I suppose that might not be a safe assumption...)
For groups designated as terrorist organization, "free speech" doesn't apply. It is illegal to provide a channel for such groups to communicate.
Putting aside legal standards for a minute, this strikes me as foolish and wrong. Free speech isn't just a fundamental right, it's also a good idea. Terrorist organizations should be able to get their messages out: how else are we going to provide a counterpoint to it?
I remember hearing that the Taliban's reps at the UN started giving out translations of the Taliban's decrees and teachings. They became quite popular, the spokesmen were pleasantly surprised that their message was catching on... until they found out that the other UN delegates were wanting them because of how utterly ridiculous they were. For instance, the Taliban had several lessons on proper sexual conduct with farm animals. It went something like Q: is it okay to have sex with a chicken? A:Yes, but you must own the chicken and then kill the chicken. Q: Can I then eat the chicken? A: No. But you may give the killed chicken to a neighbor for him to eat.
The taliban stopped distributing their propaganda to the UN at that point.
I don't think that mocking probably convinced anyone that Hamas was stupid, but you never know. And again, terrorist organizations are going to get their messages out anyway, if they're open, at least we can try to counter it.
No, if you have chosen to reproduce, "think of the kids" should be your first consideration. But only for people who are parents.
As a reason to abridge the rights of the public, many of whom have not chosen the responsibility of having kids, you're right, fuck that in the ear with a rusty railroad spike. And I say that as a parent: if my kid accesses images of bestiality or whatever you're into and is scarred by it, that's my fault. You can watch all the depraved videos you want, and put them on whatever websites you want. You can take whatever privacy measures you want even if it means that law enforcement would be unable to make sure you're not transmitting illegal material. If law enforcement has no good reason to think you're doing something illegal, then you should be free to be as secretive as you want. Anyone who says otherwise is an asshole. "Think of the children" has no place in such discussions, except to mark very stupid people who should not be allowed to vote in a country that claims to be the land of liberty.
It's just that assholes who want to increase the government's powers find it useful to use that line the wrong way. Using it to remind parents that they have greater responsibilities is not as useful. That's why typically when you hear it, it's with a bad idea, it's not an inherently evil idea in and of itself. In divorce cases, it can be quite the opposite. If you're upset at your ex-spouse, you really need to put that aside for the children and act like an adult.
Also who are they going to sue? The guy who made adblock plus? The EFF comes to his aid, and the lawsuit gets thrown out, or it doesn't and adblock plus is still out there. And people can still block hosts files really easily. People who make such blacklists and put them online for others to block? I'm sure that will work out great. It will be like trying to stop people from downloading MP3s, except a lot, lot harder.
A lot of people don't stand up for their rights just for themselves, they stand up for the rights of all. "We'll give you an exception because you made some noise, but we're still going to press ahead with this utterly pointless scheme to chip every student" is not really a victory.
And, as others have pointed out, it would require them to endorse it.
Have you met anyone who watches Fox News regularly? They can tell those people anything. I'm not even sure "spin" is needed, straight propaganda is sufficient. Just say to their viewers "Rupert is being persecuted by the liberal media, he's innocent. This is the spin-free report you won't find on those other networks." Their viewers will not question it.
Sure, just like Islam is the "religion of peace" even though, of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Muslims are involved in over 100 of them.
So because Islam is correlated with wars, Islam must be causing the wars? Sounds reasonable.
I'd argue that the real distinction that's important is secular vs theocracy. If a country or military is defined by theocracy, that's bad for peace. You can argue this or that brand of theocracy is better or worse, but that's bullshit to me. Religions are violent by nature, Islam is just the one that is more en vogue in areas of the world where people who are still mixing religion, military, and government. That Kony guy is Christian, and you mention the crusades, so lets not pretend other religions are more peaceful.
At least during the Crusades and the Inquisition, nobody went around talking about how the Catholic Church was the "institution of peace".
No, I'm pretty sure they declared they were doing God's work while they were raping and murdering. They may not have specifically said they were doing it for peace, but it was still hypocritical. Public relations was also less of a thing back in those days. It wasn't like the pope had reporters pressing him to issue a statement explaining why he was invading. He didn't have to come up with bullshit to keep the rubes from realizing the Church was full of warmongerers.
It's like the farther back in time you go, the more sense the average person had.
Ridiculous. Most of those places that are mistreating women, they weren't treating them particularly well in the past. There are examples like the Taliban where things did get much worse more recently, but we're not burning women for being witches anymore, most of the developed world realizes that evolution is how things happened, and the Church eventually admitted the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. I'd say things are getting more rational, it's just much slower than it should be going.
Well, yes, they would delegate to the guys they picked for their number two job. If their opponents became number two, there would be absolutely no delegating those unofficial powers.
The tie breaking vote? If the second-placer was a senator, as has been the case two out of the three most recent elections, that would be less power. For the amount of campaigning one does to survive the primaries, less power than a senator gets would be not even a consolation prize. It would be an embarrassment.
No, I really don't see anyone taking the VP slot to someone they lost to in the general election. It makes no sense.
Also, assuming that you are American (you may not be, of course, but changes are good), remember Afganistan? There is still a war raging there, plus at least 5 other countries are being bombed on regular basis. All that in response to an 11+ year old event (if a major one). You wanna talk about "proportional response"?
You're confusing "an American" with "America, the country." Realityimpaired is most likely a guy who lives in the US. He is most likely not one of the people who got the US involved in Afghanistan.
If you were implying there was hypocrisy there because he lives in a country that did something bad, then you're a hypocrite for living wherever it is you live, because wherever it is you live, people did/do bad stuff there too.
Also, really, do you think that someone daring to question whether Israel was morally justified was all gung-ho about Bush invading Afghanistan? I guess if you're not from America, the basics of our politics might be difficult. The answer is no: Realityimpaired likely was disgusted at his country for that.
I think you're missing my point: who started what doesn't matter, neither does who says who should all be destroyed. The palestinians rights are being violated, and that cannot be justified. That was my point.
Correlation is not causation, and in this case, there's not even a correlation. Modern political gridlock seems more correlated with cable news.
Anyway, what incentive would the runner up have to take the VP position? The incredible powers of the vice president? VP is a good chance to establish yourself as a presidential contender. If you were already a presidential candidate in the general election, the VP position is pretty much completely worthless.
"You don't like being tracked? What about being gagged? Look, we're a school, you have to give up SOME rights that have nothing to do with us teaching you things."
Now how about being a gracious winner and stop oppressing the Palestinians in real life?
Why don't stop being ignorant of the fact that Hamas' leaders have made it clear that they want Israel destroyed and all ethnic Jews eliminated?
What does that have to do with anything, aside from muddying the issues? Hamas says mean things. Palestinians voted for them. Hamas attacked Israel. That doesn't mean that Israel isn't oppressing Palestinians, nor does it mean they would deserve anything Israel decides to do with them.
There are legal standards for what is hazardous and what is not, sure. Those aren't standards that everyone uses in casual conversation, and may not be a standard used here.
I wouldn't say first class. While I think Anonymous is really overhyped here, it does seem resistant to cointelpro. First off because cointelpro tactics weren't designed for internet groups or organizations. Second because they are, to a degree, amorphous. Saying "Ha ha, we withstood your attacks!" isn't going to discourage anonymous, it's going to invite more attacks. If Israel actually is making up attacks that didn't happen, all the moreso.
Depends on how they define non-hazardous. A reasonable definition would maybe involve "Unlikely to cause a gigantic explosion or release chlorine gas." An unreasonable definition would be "Cannot possibly hurt anyone."
They could meet the reasonable one. I work in a biology lab, one that's not free-to-all. I wouldn't describe my work as hazardous. We work with some pretty serious toxins, but you'd have to ingest them, not wear gloves, or juggle the bottles for it to be dangerous.
Cooking involves some danger, but is not hazardous. Boil some water. That could hurt. But you don't think of water as "hazardous."
Slashdot Mirror
It's not for lack of evolutionary pressure. Plenty of vessels and orifices would benefit by a native layer of teflon. Imagine the predator prey relations in a world of teflon skin. Some of the room temp liquid CFCs would superficially make a good replacement for that fluid in the bone joints (sorry not doc don't know its technical name).
Synovial fluid. Sidenote, evolution tends to not reinvent the wheel, even if reinventing the wheel is entirely possible. Even if CFCs were possible to chemically make inside the body, I think evolution would tend to tweak it's fluid, protein, and connective tissue to make synovial fluid rather than make a new pathway for making CFCs.
The human brain for example is in many ways just a reptilian brain with some add-ons. Important ones, but the brain was not totally overhauled.
So I think the fact that we aren't producing CFCs is not just a chemical constraint, it's also a historical constraint.
Yeah, until they lock your account because of some random reason...
Kind of like how Toyota is great, until for some random reason they decide to hire hitmen to kill you?
Stop spreading FUD. Steam doesn't just ban people for random reasons.
That is the catch. It has not worked so far in people, or animals for that matter. But $scientist speculates it might.
Slashdot: news for nerds who evidently aren't interested in scientific research?
I suppose "nerd" has come to mean "I got an iphone 5!!!!" in popular usage, but I expect better of slashdot. This is a promising start and is very interesting. Even if it doesn't work in humans for the flu, it's still groundbreaking research in a very important subject area.
Till more data comes through we should soak the RNA in snake oil before freeze drying it.
NO!!! RNA is super unstable! You can't even put it in untreated water! Snake oil OR freeze drying it will render it completely useless! Hell, if you LOOK at RNA the wrong way, it will fall apart.
I really don't understand what your cynicism is based on. All established industries have an interest in preventing better products from replacing theirs, but how effective is that usually? I don't drive a horse and buggy.
Specific to the pharmecutical industry, if it were possible for them to prevent effective cures, why would we have new effective vaccines ever? HPV, chicken pox, those are vaccines they didn't have when I was a kid. Tylenol would have an interest in keeping kids getting chicken pox, yet they and others don't appear to have even tried to stop that. All the pharmecuticals' bottom lines would have benefitted from them selling treatment for cervical cancer, the HPV vaccine is much cheaper, yet we have that.
Big Pharma may try to get it banned, they certainly could hold it up. The RIAA and MPAA are fighting hard to keep their obsolete industries going, and are doing it fairly effectively. But "It will never happen because they'll lose money" sounds way too tinfoil hat to me. Especially when there's a lot of money to be made selling it, and not all pharmecuticals sell the current flu shots.
But in the example, Rodney King, the context was irrelevant as far as the police go. It explains WHY the cops were so mad that they beat on him after he was down. Realistically, I don't expect cops to be saints and immune to anger, but as far as standards for law enforcement, "He was being a complete asshole and endangering everyone" is not a valid reason.
It's poor journalism though, you're right. And that extra context might have provoked less of an angry response from the community. The riots were at least partly the media's fault because of that. But the context does not excuse the cops. We must have high standards for law enforcement. Especially in Illinois.
My love of steam has, if possible, increased because of this. They didn't call it cyber monday, they just had an autumn sale. And their sales are always real sales.
If you think that Social Security or Medicare are "earned benefits", that boat sailed 50 years ago; the Supreme Court disagreed with you in 1960 (Flemming v. Nestor).
If the wiki summary is correct, that found that you weren't in a legal contract for social security, so legally you can't sue to get it back. That doesn't mean you didn't earn it from working, in the sense that in a sane world it SHOULD be yours.
Recently, President (George W.) Bush wanted to give each worker a real retirement account where the worker would have ownership, but your side threw an epic fit over the proposal (for transparently bad reasons).
I'm being lazy and not googling it, but I thought he was talking about putting social security money into the stock market. I also thought I remembered hearing that had he done that, in hindsight with the recession, some retirees might be doing better, but most would have seen a significant decrease in their funds already, as opposed to social security still continuing.
If you think bringing one or two hundred thousand deployed servicemen and servicewomen back home -- given the general economic climate, with the likely effect of dumping either them or others into unemployment -- would solve the budget deficit, you again haven't given the matter enough thought.
I thought he was referencing how much we're paying for them to be over there, not implying we suffer from a shortage of workers. Though I'm not sure what the "workforce" bit was about.
Could you please point me to proof of a single documented case of one species naturally evolving into another one during the thousands of years of recorded history? Thanks!
(Ugh... I feel sick saying that. And I guess I'm assuming AC is not a creationist. I suppose that might not be a safe assumption...)
For groups designated as terrorist organization, "free speech" doesn't apply. It is illegal to provide a channel for such groups to communicate.
Putting aside legal standards for a minute, this strikes me as foolish and wrong. Free speech isn't just a fundamental right, it's also a good idea. Terrorist organizations should be able to get their messages out: how else are we going to provide a counterpoint to it?
I remember hearing that the Taliban's reps at the UN started giving out translations of the Taliban's decrees and teachings. They became quite popular, the spokesmen were pleasantly surprised that their message was catching on... until they found out that the other UN delegates were wanting them because of how utterly ridiculous they were. For instance, the Taliban had several lessons on proper sexual conduct with farm animals. It went something like Q: is it okay to have sex with a chicken? A:Yes, but you must own the chicken and then kill the chicken. Q: Can I then eat the chicken? A: No. But you may give the killed chicken to a neighbor for him to eat.
The taliban stopped distributing their propaganda to the UN at that point.
For instance, when they tweet "#Palestinian youth managed to reach the barrier and take pictures of the bombed #Israeli army jeep. #Gaza #GazaVictory," I can ask why it is Hamas thinks that kids taking pictures of a bombed jeep counts as "#GazaVictory?" If that blurry cameraphone picture counts as a victory, Israel really should worry about Hamas getting a DLSR. If those kids had instagram on that phone, maybe Hamas could have taken back Jerusalem by now!
I don't think that mocking probably convinced anyone that Hamas was stupid, but you never know. And again, terrorist organizations are going to get their messages out anyway, if they're open, at least we can try to counter it.
No, if you have chosen to reproduce, "think of the kids" should be your first consideration. But only for people who are parents.
As a reason to abridge the rights of the public, many of whom have not chosen the responsibility of having kids, you're right, fuck that in the ear with a rusty railroad spike. And I say that as a parent: if my kid accesses images of bestiality or whatever you're into and is scarred by it, that's my fault. You can watch all the depraved videos you want, and put them on whatever websites you want. You can take whatever privacy measures you want even if it means that law enforcement would be unable to make sure you're not transmitting illegal material. If law enforcement has no good reason to think you're doing something illegal, then you should be free to be as secretive as you want. Anyone who says otherwise is an asshole. "Think of the children" has no place in such discussions, except to mark very stupid people who should not be allowed to vote in a country that claims to be the land of liberty.
It's just that assholes who want to increase the government's powers find it useful to use that line the wrong way. Using it to remind parents that they have greater responsibilities is not as useful. That's why typically when you hear it, it's with a bad idea, it's not an inherently evil idea in and of itself. In divorce cases, it can be quite the opposite. If you're upset at your ex-spouse, you really need to put that aside for the children and act like an adult.
Also who are they going to sue? The guy who made adblock plus? The EFF comes to his aid, and the lawsuit gets thrown out, or it doesn't and adblock plus is still out there. And people can still block hosts files really easily. People who make such blacklists and put them online for others to block? I'm sure that will work out great. It will be like trying to stop people from downloading MP3s, except a lot, lot harder.
A lot of people don't stand up for their rights just for themselves, they stand up for the rights of all. "We'll give you an exception because you made some noise, but we're still going to press ahead with this utterly pointless scheme to chip every student" is not really a victory.
And, as others have pointed out, it would require them to endorse it.
Have you met anyone who watches Fox News regularly? They can tell those people anything. I'm not even sure "spin" is needed, straight propaganda is sufficient. Just say to their viewers "Rupert is being persecuted by the liberal media, he's innocent. This is the spin-free report you won't find on those other networks." Their viewers will not question it.
Sure, just like Islam is the "religion of peace" even though, of the 120 or so active shooting wars happening today, Muslims are involved in over 100 of them.
So because Islam is correlated with wars, Islam must be causing the wars? Sounds reasonable.
I'd argue that the real distinction that's important is secular vs theocracy. If a country or military is defined by theocracy, that's bad for peace. You can argue this or that brand of theocracy is better or worse, but that's bullshit to me. Religions are violent by nature, Islam is just the one that is more en vogue in areas of the world where people who are still mixing religion, military, and government. That Kony guy is Christian, and you mention the crusades, so lets not pretend other religions are more peaceful.
At least during the Crusades and the Inquisition, nobody went around talking about how the Catholic Church was the "institution of peace".
No, I'm pretty sure they declared they were doing God's work while they were raping and murdering. They may not have specifically said they were doing it for peace, but it was still hypocritical. Public relations was also less of a thing back in those days. It wasn't like the pope had reporters pressing him to issue a statement explaining why he was invading. He didn't have to come up with bullshit to keep the rubes from realizing the Church was full of warmongerers.
It's like the farther back in time you go, the more sense the average person had.
Ridiculous. Most of those places that are mistreating women, they weren't treating them particularly well in the past. There are examples like the Taliban where things did get much worse more recently, but we're not burning women for being witches anymore, most of the developed world realizes that evolution is how things happened, and the Church eventually admitted the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa. I'd say things are getting more rational, it's just much slower than it should be going.
Abortion third rail on slashdot? Please. Climate change, that's more of a third rail than abortion.
Well, yes, they would delegate to the guys they picked for their number two job. If their opponents became number two, there would be absolutely no delegating those unofficial powers.
The tie breaking vote? If the second-placer was a senator, as has been the case two out of the three most recent elections, that would be less power. For the amount of campaigning one does to survive the primaries, less power than a senator gets would be not even a consolation prize. It would be an embarrassment.
No, I really don't see anyone taking the VP slot to someone they lost to in the general election. It makes no sense.
Also, assuming that you are American (you may not be, of course, but changes are good), remember Afganistan? There is still a war raging there, plus at least 5 other countries are being bombed on regular basis. All that in response to an 11+ year old event (if a major one). You wanna talk about "proportional response"?
You're confusing "an American" with "America, the country." Realityimpaired is most likely a guy who lives in the US. He is most likely not one of the people who got the US involved in Afghanistan.
If you were implying there was hypocrisy there because he lives in a country that did something bad, then you're a hypocrite for living wherever it is you live, because wherever it is you live, people did/do bad stuff there too.
Also, really, do you think that someone daring to question whether Israel was morally justified was all gung-ho about Bush invading Afghanistan? I guess if you're not from America, the basics of our politics might be difficult. The answer is no: Realityimpaired likely was disgusted at his country for that.
I think you're missing my point: who started what doesn't matter, neither does who says who should all be destroyed. The palestinians rights are being violated, and that cannot be justified. That was my point.
Correlation is not causation, and in this case, there's not even a correlation. Modern political gridlock seems more correlated with cable news.
Anyway, what incentive would the runner up have to take the VP position? The incredible powers of the vice president? VP is a good chance to establish yourself as a presidential contender. If you were already a presidential candidate in the general election, the VP position is pretty much completely worthless.
He took an oath to support and defend the constitution, and did the opposite until it became clear he couldn't. It's not "suppose" to work that way.
"You don't like being tracked? What about being gagged? Look, we're a school, you have to give up SOME rights that have nothing to do with us teaching you things."
Now how about being a gracious winner and stop oppressing the Palestinians in real life?
Why don't stop being ignorant of the fact that Hamas' leaders have made it clear that they want Israel destroyed and all ethnic Jews eliminated?
What does that have to do with anything, aside from muddying the issues? Hamas says mean things. Palestinians voted for them. Hamas attacked Israel. That doesn't mean that Israel isn't oppressing Palestinians, nor does it mean they would deserve anything Israel decides to do with them.
There are legal standards for what is hazardous and what is not, sure. Those aren't standards that everyone uses in casual conversation, and may not be a standard used here.
I wouldn't say first class. While I think Anonymous is really overhyped here, it does seem resistant to cointelpro. First off because cointelpro tactics weren't designed for internet groups or organizations. Second because they are, to a degree, amorphous. Saying "Ha ha, we withstood your attacks!" isn't going to discourage anonymous, it's going to invite more attacks. If Israel actually is making up attacks that didn't happen, all the moreso.
Depends on how they define non-hazardous. A reasonable definition would maybe involve "Unlikely to cause a gigantic explosion or release chlorine gas." An unreasonable definition would be "Cannot possibly hurt anyone."
They could meet the reasonable one. I work in a biology lab, one that's not free-to-all. I wouldn't describe my work as hazardous. We work with some pretty serious toxins, but you'd have to ingest them, not wear gloves, or juggle the bottles for it to be dangerous.
Cooking involves some danger, but is not hazardous. Boil some water. That could hurt. But you don't think of water as "hazardous."