"Nearly done" is a long ways from "It will be here in 11 days." 11 days from release, DNF had already gone from "vaporware" to "whatever the opposite of vaporware is" to "gold." The mediocre reviews had not come out at that point, but it was a real thing.
Was there a countdown that got down to "less than 2 weeks" that was then pushed back for DNF? I can't remember any, but I wasn't waiting for that game.
Also, the caloric restriction mentioned here in nematodes and mice wasn't "dieting" that was improving their lifespan.
In 1934, Mary Crowell and Clive McCay of Cornell University observed that laboratory rats fed a severely reduced calorie diet while maintaining micronutrient levels resulted in life spans of up to twice as long as otherwise expected.
It goes beyond just staying thin, you have to be just above starving. To the point where I'd rather NOT live an extra 10 years of that. Plus, the benefits are lessened if you don't start it young.
Which is why so few scientists were trying it on themselves even before this study suggests it wouldn't work.
I was arguing from a consumer standpoint. Because I AM a consumer. It will allow me to customize the camera to my liking. From their perspective, it could be less of a liability, they could do less troubleshooting than they do now, they could worry less about the software being a drawback in reviews and start being a positive.
Why do so many phone manufacturers turn to android? I'm not really sure, since I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the reasons need not be specific to a phone.
The ideal solution would be if the camera manufacturers put a lot of time, effort, and money into developing their software, yes, but that doesn't seem likely to happen. Moreover, none of us have any control over that.
Because the software is usually shitty: you're buying the phone for the hardware. I have a sony DSLT that I love, except for one thing. Exposure bracketing is limited to 0.7 EV. It will take pictures over a wider range of exposures, the problem is that it will only do that for automatic HDR, and will not save the pictures it took. Those HDR images are automatic, and always look shitty. I want to save the three bracketed pictures over a wider range and use the software on my computer to get a good control over the various options. But I'm limited to an extremely narrow range of exposures I can manually work with.
There was some suggestion that this was intentional, to make the cheapest version of the camera less attractive. Maybe, but it's also possible that it was simply an poor design, since it's not like the upper models were really advertising the wider ranges.
Other cameras have the ability to install your own firmware. I forget which brand it is, but you can give yourself manual controls on a compact digital camera, the likes of which are normally only found on much more expensive, bulkier DSLs. These cameras have better software options than my camera does, despite being much more expensive.
3) At the moment there are essentially no practical applications of patch clamping "for the masses"
Maybe because other types garage research into cell biology are still not happening. At home PCR machines are feasible, at this point you can build one for around $500. I heard of a relatively cheap desktop electron microscope not too long ago. The price of DNA sequencing is falling fast. Microscopes are getting cheaper and
more powerful. All the tools seem to be headed in the direction of home experimentation.
Maybe someone in their garage will harvest some of their own fibroblasts, make their own culture media, transfect in the four necessary genes for induced pluripotence, harvest pluripotent colonies, direct differentiation to neurons, and will start making neruonal computers, using patch clamps to check the output. That's feasible, it would still be too rich for me to do in my apartment, but give me a few years to start making more than a postdoc salary, a few years for IPSC efficiency to increase and for culture media to come down in price.
If the penis didn't need a foreskin, evolution would not have put it there.
I object to the reasoning here. Evolution doesn't really work like that. There are plenty of features that are there not because they're important currently. Male nipples, for example, are not an evolved feature. They're there because of constraints on evolution according to Gould. Foreskins being present doesn't mean they MUST have a purpose.
Not to say they do NOT have a purpose, just evolution doesn't mean everything has a real reason to be there.
I also would guess that a creationist would have problems with your last statement, but I'm okay with people mangling creationist ideas, so carry on. I might buy a bumper sticker with that on it if you're selling.
Wow, nice. So because people act foolishly, everyone (that doesn't approve of it) must suffer?
I'm sorry, was this story about a law that says you MUST get circumcised, or was it about what a health organization was recommending?
"Must suffer?" "Punish?' How about you leave such wild accusations to the political arena. They're giving their advice and getting it to be covered by insurance.. They're enacting a policy to try to reduce sickness, which is their job. They are not forcing anything. Blame your parents for deciding for you if you're mad about losing your foreskin.
Not sure it's good to lay all the blame at one individual's feet. It's a much bigger problem, the whole MBA and spreadsheet takeover of all technology. There had to have been other idiots who went along with her short-sightedness within HP. And there are still such bean counters everywhere else. Private industry decision makers seem to all be of the mindset that nothing longer than 5 year profits are worth considering. There had to be more of them than Fiona.
Over the last decade maybe, funding for biomedical research has done a similar thing: there's been more federal funding diverted to short-term payoffs, translational research, and less to basic, unguided research. Research of both types are needed, but with translational research, the payoff is closer. Private companies can and should be funding that research since it's more likely they'll be able to make a profit from it. The government needs to stay out of research that is likely to make a return in a few short years: that's just giving money to private industries. The government should be funding research that is important but longer term.
So, yeah, fuck her and all the other MBA types in positions that require long term vision. The only job they should be allowed to take is scratching lottery tickets.
How is it dying even as a consumer appliance? Tablets and PCs aren't a zero sum game at least for now. You buy a tablet, you probably already have a laptop. Tablets aren't replacing them.
It's a bit like how one or two years ago, everyone was predicting that mobile gaming was going to replace console and PC gaming, and a few years before that there were predictions that games were going to replace movies. "At this moment, A is increasing in popularity while B is decreasing in popularity, therefore A will replace B!" is foolish even if B and A are competing. If they're not, then it's downright idiotic. Movies were not replaced by games, nor will they be ever. Mobile games did not replace full games, nor will they ever. Tablets will not replace full computers nor will they ever.
The only reason one would suggest otherwise is to get page hits for saying something outrageous, or trolling.
I don't know if it's ALWAYS a good idea. My boss really didn't like "Show up drunk" Mondays. I guess ambulance driving isn't important enough to stress test in such a rigorous manner. Fuckers.
But that's the same thing though. Not every Tea Partier may be convinced Obama was born in Kenya, not every tea partier is necessarily in favor of abolishing all taxes for millionaires, but they're not restraining their lunatic fringe either, they're following them. The tea party IS pushing for extreme positions, and the bulk of the tea party is not effectively stopping it.
Me too. Remembering it and being dismayed that the democrat senator I had voted for was being so brazenly corrupt. Sure, it's California, it's not suprising the democratic candidate is a lapdog of the MPAA, but still.
"Social conservatism" is a poor term, since these people don't want to preserve anything about society. They're social regressives.
I also think they aren't so principled. I think they vote for whoever the right wing media tells them to vote for. Don't get me wrong, the same could be said of much of the left's base. If anything, that's worse, because the right wing media is actually telling the GOP base to vote for the candidates to the right of the spectrum, while the left wing media, afraid of anyone finding out they're left wing, have told their base to vote for the person in the middle, to the point where the democratic candidate is to the right of middle.
Slashdot Mirror
Gman comes out and says "Doctor Freeman... we're just... ah... going to skip this (clears throat) next bit."
"Nearly done" is a long ways from "It will be here in 11 days." 11 days from release, DNF had already gone from "vaporware" to "whatever the opposite of vaporware is" to "gold." The mediocre reviews had not come out at that point, but it was a real thing.
Was there a countdown that got down to "less than 2 weeks" that was then pushed back for DNF? I can't remember any, but I wasn't waiting for that game.
In 1934, Mary Crowell and Clive McCay of Cornell University observed that laboratory rats fed a severely reduced calorie diet while maintaining micronutrient levels resulted in life spans of up to twice as long as otherwise expected.
It goes beyond just staying thin, you have to be just above starving. To the point where I'd rather NOT live an extra 10 years of that. Plus, the benefits are lessened if you don't start it young.
Which is why so few scientists were trying it on themselves even before this study suggests it wouldn't work.
And our phones will be running "Android: Quik-flavored milk?"
Google should really start trying to come up with a dessert that starts with Q, otherwise they're going to be sued by Apple, MS, AND Nestle.
I was arguing from a consumer standpoint. Because I AM a consumer. It will allow me to customize the camera to my liking. From their perspective, it could be less of a liability, they could do less troubleshooting than they do now, they could worry less about the software being a drawback in reviews and start being a positive.
Why do so many phone manufacturers turn to android? I'm not really sure, since I'm not a software engineer, but it seems to me that the reasons need not be specific to a phone.
The ideal solution would be if the camera manufacturers put a lot of time, effort, and money into developing their software, yes, but that doesn't seem likely to happen. Moreover, none of us have any control over that.
Correct on both counts.
Because the software is usually shitty: you're buying the phone for the hardware. I have a sony DSLT that I love, except for one thing. Exposure bracketing is limited to 0.7 EV. It will take pictures over a wider range of exposures, the problem is that it will only do that for automatic HDR, and will not save the pictures it took. Those HDR images are automatic, and always look shitty. I want to save the three bracketed pictures over a wider range and use the software on my computer to get a good control over the various options. But I'm limited to an extremely narrow range of exposures I can manually work with.
There was some suggestion that this was intentional, to make the cheapest version of the camera less attractive. Maybe, but it's also possible that it was simply an poor design, since it's not like the upper models were really advertising the wider ranges.
Other cameras have the ability to install your own firmware. I forget which brand it is, but you can give yourself manual controls on a compact digital camera, the likes of which are normally only found on much more expensive, bulkier DSLs. These cameras have better software options than my camera does, despite being much more expensive.
3) At the moment there are essentially no practical applications of patch clamping "for the masses"
Maybe because other types garage research into cell biology are still not happening. At home PCR machines are feasible, at this point you can build one for around $500. I heard of a relatively cheap desktop electron microscope not too long ago. The price of DNA sequencing is falling fast. Microscopes are getting cheaper and more powerful. All the tools seem to be headed in the direction of home experimentation.
Maybe someone in their garage will harvest some of their own fibroblasts, make their own culture media, transfect in the four necessary genes for induced pluripotence, harvest pluripotent colonies, direct differentiation to neurons, and will start making neruonal computers, using patch clamps to check the output. That's feasible, it would still be too rich for me to do in my apartment, but give me a few years to start making more than a postdoc salary, a few years for IPSC efficiency to increase and for culture media to come down in price.
Alternatively: It's Tennessee, what else is there to be proud of there?
If the penis didn't need a foreskin, evolution would not have put it there.
I object to the reasoning here. Evolution doesn't really work like that. There are plenty of features that are there not because they're important currently. Male nipples, for example, are not an evolved feature. They're there because of constraints on evolution according to Gould. Foreskins being present doesn't mean they MUST have a purpose.
Not to say they do NOT have a purpose, just evolution doesn't mean everything has a real reason to be there.
I also would guess that a creationist would have problems with your last statement, but I'm okay with people mangling creationist ideas, so carry on. I might buy a bumper sticker with that on it if you're selling.
Wow, nice. So because people act foolishly, everyone (that doesn't approve of it) must suffer?
I'm sorry, was this story about a law that says you MUST get circumcised, or was it about what a health organization was recommending?
"Must suffer?" "Punish?' How about you leave such wild accusations to the political arena. They're giving their advice and getting it to be covered by insurance.. They're enacting a policy to try to reduce sickness, which is their job. They are not forcing anything. Blame your parents for deciding for you if you're mad about losing your foreskin.
Biology nerd here. No. It's important. Why are there so many patent law stories?
Let me guess you were one of them that said "Facebook is losing compared to MYspace"
Guilty as charged, which is why I'm not ruling out Friendster coming back and taking over.
Indeed, crossbow, recurve, compound... just seems unnecessary.
In other words "Ha ha! You were making fun of a type o and you yourself made a type o!"
Not sure it's good to lay all the blame at one individual's feet. It's a much bigger problem, the whole MBA and spreadsheet takeover of all technology. There had to have been other idiots who went along with her short-sightedness within HP. And there are still such bean counters everywhere else. Private industry decision makers seem to all be of the mindset that nothing longer than 5 year profits are worth considering. There had to be more of them than Fiona.
Over the last decade maybe, funding for biomedical research has done a similar thing: there's been more federal funding diverted to short-term payoffs, translational research, and less to basic, unguided research. Research of both types are needed, but with translational research, the payoff is closer. Private companies can and should be funding that research since it's more likely they'll be able to make a profit from it. The government needs to stay out of research that is likely to make a return in a few short years: that's just giving money to private industries. The government should be funding research that is important but longer term.
So, yeah, fuck her and all the other MBA types in positions that require long term vision. The only job they should be allowed to take is scratching lottery tickets.
How is it dying even as a consumer appliance? Tablets and PCs aren't a zero sum game at least for now. You buy a tablet, you probably already have a laptop. Tablets aren't replacing them.
It's a bit like how one or two years ago, everyone was predicting that mobile gaming was going to replace console and PC gaming, and a few years before that there were predictions that games were going to replace movies. "At this moment, A is increasing in popularity while B is decreasing in popularity, therefore A will replace B!" is foolish even if B and A are competing. If they're not, then it's downright idiotic. Movies were not replaced by games, nor will they be ever. Mobile games did not replace full games, nor will they ever. Tablets will not replace full computers nor will they ever.
The only reason one would suggest otherwise is to get page hits for saying something outrageous, or trolling.
So you're Mr. Happy Optimism today...
I don't know if it's ALWAYS a good idea. My boss really didn't like "Show up drunk" Mondays. I guess ambulance driving isn't important enough to stress test in such a rigorous manner. Fuckers.
I'm sure they knew exactly as much as about it as the lobbyists for the publishers thought they should know.
But that's the same thing though. Not every Tea Partier may be convinced Obama was born in Kenya, not every tea partier is necessarily in favor of abolishing all taxes for millionaires, but they're not restraining their lunatic fringe either, they're following them. The tea party IS pushing for extreme positions, and the bulk of the tea party is not effectively stopping it.
Me too. Remembering it and being dismayed that the democrat senator I had voted for was being so brazenly corrupt. Sure, it's California, it's not suprising the democratic candidate is a lapdog of the MPAA, but still.
"Social conservatism" is a poor term, since these people don't want to preserve anything about society. They're social regressives.
I also think they aren't so principled. I think they vote for whoever the right wing media tells them to vote for. Don't get me wrong, the same could be said of much of the left's base. If anything, that's worse, because the right wing media is actually telling the GOP base to vote for the candidates to the right of the spectrum, while the left wing media, afraid of anyone finding out they're left wing, have told their base to vote for the person in the middle, to the point where the democratic candidate is to the right of middle.
Now for the bad news: Prohibition is never, ever going to end. It's just too much of a wonderful bonanza for the state.
I see no reason to be so cynical about it. Decriminalization suggests that things can and do change despite what law enforcement wants.
How are either of those possibilities not interesting?!?