Envy may not have been the point. Wall street brokers getting paid many times what scientists do: that to me says we as a society are more interested in a slot machine than curing cancer.
Too many people were told "educate yourself" and heard "go to college and get a degree in underwater basketweaving."
That makes sense for getting your BS in communications or something like that, but we're talking about biomedical research. That's something that seems like it would have actual value to society and business, seeing as how we haven't cured every disease out there yet.
Problem 2 is a persistent cultural cancer in academia that declares and academic job as the only kind of job there is
In many sub-fields of biomedical research, that does seem to be the actual case. The private sector isn't generally interested in doing biological research on anything besides finding the cure for cancer, if it doesn't involve a payout in the next 5 years. Perhaps the reason only tenure-track jobs positions are considered is because the other options are even rarer.
does it really bother you so much if someone has more wealth than you?
Only if they are using their wealth to corrupt the nation in order to move into greater wealth at the expense of the masses. Which I see many of the wealthy doing.
More often, they just ignore the police brutality that does happen. The only times they actually show police being bullies is in those rare occasions when it's too big to ignore or dismiss as taken out of context. Even then, they move on quickly to less important things, like regurgitating talking points from politicians.
It's rare that you get the media actually investigating police brutality. You heard about the pepper-spraying, but you probably didn't hear anything else about it.
So your thesis is that since he chose a very polarized example as his only example in a post, he must not know anything about what he's talking about?
I think the point of Godwin's law is that "Nazi" is name calling without name calling. If you compare someone to a Nazi, equating the two, you're being hyperbolic unless the person you're comparing them to is actually committing genocide.
Saint Fnordius wasn't equating anyone with anything negative, he wasn't name calling. He was illustrating his point with a relevant and known example most of us have heard about. It was not anything like Godwinning.
Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?
You did miss a memo. It reads "Hey, all the kids these days are doing this thing called 'trolling' so we should try that! Cause we're still pretty groovy and young!"
Plus, fencing is to swordfighting as dancing is to sex. Yeah, it's in some ways reminiscent, but much much much much less exciting. And drier.
In fencing, you put a mesh grate over your face and try to poke each other with flexible metal sticks. You usually don't cut off the other person's head or limbs in fencing.
Some of us would rather do the more exciting one virtually than the more boring one in real life.
Maybe it's going to be historically accurate: there wasn't much edge-to-edge contact between swords according to many sword experts. I've heard it's a bit like explosion sounds in space movies: not realistic, but entertaining.
Allowing GMO makes about as much sense as letting self-driving, self-replicating motorcycle drones on the road because "we're pretty sure" they won't go Terminator on us.
You're saying if we invent self-driving, self replicating motorcycles, you'd want us to assume that they were going to rise up and destroy us? I actually would be a lot more okay with that than a lot of GMO. I mean, organisms have been subject to millions of years of evolution to adapt, reproduce, and consume natural resources. I'm pretty confident that Suzuki wouldn't be able to make something that competitive anytime soon.
The only reason why we have hunger is due to corrupt governments not because we can't produce enough food
You're right that overpopulation isn't currently causing hunger. But the population growth is still increasing, not decreasing, meaning that may not hold true forever. Furthermore, there are many other factors that could compound with high population to cause food shortages: monoculture of many basic foods (leading to disease susceptibility), porous borders for agricultural pathogens and pests, colony collapse disorder, and climate change. And those are just the ones I could think up quickly.
I think the smart thing to do would be to plan for if and when there is a real global food shortage problem far enough in advance that we can easily avoid it. Not that that really sounds like something we'd do. I mean, we're still designing cites that you need to burn oil to get around, and clearly oil will run out before too much longer.
I also wonder if there's a way one could do cryosection like this. Freeze a sample in some solution of water and corn syrup such that it would be possible to section it like that.
Second that. "Child friendly" in this case means "cheap enough that if he breaks it it won't be a big deal." I had a cheap plastic "kids" microscope when I was a kid from Fischer price or something like that. It was less useful than a magnifying glass. I used it as a toy gun mostly. That didn't deter me from it: I'm a cell biologist today, but I would have loved a real microscope.
I woudn't rule out compound scopes though. If he's interested in paramecia and bacteria, microbes, he's interested in plenty of things that are going to be visible with a compound microscope. A drop of pond water, you can generally see more with the compound scope than you can with the dissecting scope.
I'm going to be generous and guess that that means about the same number of people would be interested in watching it, but don't want to pirate AND don't have HBO, so it's possible that HBO is only getting about a third of the eyeballs it could.
It's odd to me that a potential tax on sugary drinks triggers a reaction like this. From my perspective, the fact that they're not talking about outright banning it is a good sign.
Given the shit the nanny state is doing, banning things that are bad for you, and making you buy things that are good for you, a mere tax on something you can buy is pretty low priority in my book.
Clearly, they're in such a panic that they developed a time machine went back in time to sell these things to make it look like they weren't just doing it to beat the ipad.
Is there a comprehensive list of problems deregulation has solved? If so, does it start and end with "The shareholders, executive board, lobbyists, and politicians don't have enough money"?
You think the government is ever less savage or flawed than its citizens? That's... interesting... Don't hear too many people around here espousing authoritarian views...
Re:TFA's Scientist's take on Gattaca problem
on
Sequencing the Unborn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Thats begging the question
Stop right there. No it's not. I'll let you ask your question anyway, but it's going to be a strawman argument.
your argument would be akin to "why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their newborn".
Called it! That's a strawman. We're not talking about a newborn, we're talking about an embryo. Everyone agrees that a newborn has rights, there is no consensus as to whether an embryo does. Furthermore, a newborn is not an obligate dependent on one specific person, newborns can be dropped off at any safe baby haven or given up for adoption. There's no similar alternative for pregnant women.
My point here is that this is a totally separate issue from abandoning a newborn.
Answering your point, no, I don't think letting the parents decide whether abortion is right or not for them is only ethical if we assume life does not begin at conception. In most countries, most ethical decisions are left up to the individual. There's no law that says I can't cheat on my wife, it's up to me to decide if I think that's ethical or want to do that. Lacking a law against adultery is not an unethical situation, it simply leaves the responsibility up to the individual.
Legalizing abortion doesn't endorse abortion, it only leaves the ethical question up to the people who deserve to make the choice: the parents.
Slashdot Mirror
Envy may not have been the point. Wall street brokers getting paid many times what scientists do: that to me says we as a society are more interested in a slot machine than curing cancer.
Too many people were told "educate yourself" and heard "go to college and get a degree in underwater basketweaving."
That makes sense for getting your BS in communications or something like that, but we're talking about biomedical research. That's something that seems like it would have actual value to society and business, seeing as how we haven't cured every disease out there yet.
Problem 2 is a persistent cultural cancer in academia that declares and academic job as the only kind of job there is
In many sub-fields of biomedical research, that does seem to be the actual case. The private sector isn't generally interested in doing biological research on anything besides finding the cure for cancer, if it doesn't involve a payout in the next 5 years. Perhaps the reason only tenure-track jobs positions are considered is because the other options are even rarer.
does it really bother you so much if someone has more wealth than you?
Only if they are using their wealth to corrupt the nation in order to move into greater wealth at the expense of the masses. Which I see many of the wealthy doing.
... I feel dumb for asking this, but what's so profitable about lossless compression?
the occupiers usually come off as smug hipsters with a victim mentality - demonstrated through their actions and creative editing
Bullshit. Show me the context where the occupiers' actions justified pepper spraying.
You simply don't like the occupiers, and are trying to justify the other side.
More often, they just ignore the police brutality that does happen. The only times they actually show police being bullies is in those rare occasions when it's too big to ignore or dismiss as taken out of context. Even then, they move on quickly to less important things, like regurgitating talking points from politicians.
It's rare that you get the media actually investigating police brutality. You heard about the pepper-spraying, but you probably didn't hear anything else about it.
I have some bad news for you about the "normal" meanings of words as they are used by politicians, lobbyists, media, and industry today...
They don't need to do that, they can just chase you in "Second life."
(CBS seems to have pulled the scene from youtube out of embarrassment.)
So your thesis is that since he chose a very polarized example as his only example in a post, he must not know anything about what he's talking about?
I think the point of Godwin's law is that "Nazi" is name calling without name calling. If you compare someone to a Nazi, equating the two, you're being hyperbolic unless the person you're comparing them to is actually committing genocide.
Saint Fnordius wasn't equating anyone with anything negative, he wasn't name calling. He was illustrating his point with a relevant and known example most of us have heard about. It was not anything like Godwinning.
Did I miss a memo? When did charitable giving become a bad thing?
You did miss a memo. It reads "Hey, all the kids these days are doing this thing called 'trolling' so we should try that! Cause we're still pretty groovy and young!"
Freezing tends to make cells burst open from ice crystals, doesn't it?
A 15% sucrose slurry acts as a cryoprotectant to prevent this. At least in the chicken embryos I work with.
Plus, fencing is to swordfighting as dancing is to sex. Yeah, it's in some ways reminiscent, but much much much much less exciting. And drier.
In fencing, you put a mesh grate over your face and try to poke each other with flexible metal sticks. You usually don't cut off the other person's head or limbs in fencing.
Some of us would rather do the more exciting one virtually than the more boring one in real life.
Maybe it's going to be historically accurate: there wasn't much edge-to-edge contact between swords according to many sword experts. I've heard it's a bit like explosion sounds in space movies: not realistic, but entertaining.
Allowing GMO makes about as much sense as letting self-driving, self-replicating motorcycle drones on the road because "we're pretty sure" they won't go Terminator on us.
You're saying if we invent self-driving, self replicating motorcycles, you'd want us to assume that they were going to rise up and destroy us? I actually would be a lot more okay with that than a lot of GMO. I mean, organisms have been subject to millions of years of evolution to adapt, reproduce, and consume natural resources. I'm pretty confident that Suzuki wouldn't be able to make something that competitive anytime soon.
The only reason why we have hunger is due to corrupt governments not because we can't produce enough food
You're right that overpopulation isn't currently causing hunger. But the population growth is still increasing, not decreasing, meaning that may not hold true forever. Furthermore, there are many other factors that could compound with high population to cause food shortages: monoculture of many basic foods (leading to disease susceptibility), porous borders for agricultural pathogens and pests, colony collapse disorder, and climate change. And those are just the ones I could think up quickly.
I think the smart thing to do would be to plan for if and when there is a real global food shortage problem far enough in advance that we can easily avoid it. Not that that really sounds like something we'd do. I mean, we're still designing cites that you need to burn oil to get around, and clearly oil will run out before too much longer.
How well does that work?
I also wonder if there's a way one could do cryosection like this. Freeze a sample in some solution of water and corn syrup such that it would be possible to section it like that.
Second that. "Child friendly" in this case means "cheap enough that if he breaks it it won't be a big deal." I had a cheap plastic "kids" microscope when I was a kid from Fischer price or something like that. It was less useful than a magnifying glass. I used it as a toy gun mostly. That didn't deter me from it: I'm a cell biologist today, but I would have loved a real microscope.
This dissecting microscope looks pretty cool.
I woudn't rule out compound scopes though. If he's interested in paramecia and bacteria, microbes, he's interested in plenty of things that are going to be visible with a compound microscope. A drop of pond water, you can generally see more with the compound scope than you can with the dissecting scope.
Also, somewhat unrelated, show him this virtual microscope and Nikon small world galleries.
Translation: it needs to be done as often as possible, until police learn they aren't above the law.
I think the bigger news, not covered by TFA, is that more people are actually pirating it than are watching it "legally." That is a bit of a surprise to me.
I'm going to be generous and guess that that means about the same number of people would be interested in watching it, but don't want to pirate AND don't have HBO, so it's possible that HBO is only getting about a third of the eyeballs it could.
Indeed - welcome to the Nanny state
It's odd to me that a potential tax on sugary drinks triggers a reaction like this. From my perspective, the fact that they're not talking about outright banning it is a good sign.
You want to complain about the nanny state of California, how about the new requirement that children be in carseats until the age of 8? Need to take a taxi from the airport and have a 7 year old? I guess you're supposed to put him or her in the trunk. From what I can tell, there's no exceptions for taxis.
Given the shit the nanny state is doing, banning things that are bad for you, and making you buy things that are good for you, a mere tax on something you can buy is pretty low priority in my book.
Clearly, they're in such a panic that they developed a time machine went back in time to sell these things to make it look like they weren't just doing it to beat the ipad.
So a launch from Cape Canaveral could cause $2.7 Billion in damage?
Whoever did this study must have hired MPAA/RIAA accountants.
Is there a comprehensive list of problems deregulation has solved? If so, does it start and end with "The shareholders, executive board, lobbyists, and politicians don't have enough money"?
You think the government is ever less savage or flawed than its citizens? That's... interesting... Don't hear too many people around here espousing authoritarian views...
Thats begging the question
Stop right there. No it's not. I'll let you ask your question anyway, but it's going to be a strawman argument.
your argument would be akin to "why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their newborn".
Called it! That's a strawman. We're not talking about a newborn, we're talking about an embryo. Everyone agrees that a newborn has rights, there is no consensus as to whether an embryo does. Furthermore, a newborn is not an obligate dependent on one specific person, newborns can be dropped off at any safe baby haven or given up for adoption. There's no similar alternative for pregnant women.
My point here is that this is a totally separate issue from abandoning a newborn.
Answering your point, no, I don't think letting the parents decide whether abortion is right or not for them is only ethical if we assume life does not begin at conception. In most countries, most ethical decisions are left up to the individual. There's no law that says I can't cheat on my wife, it's up to me to decide if I think that's ethical or want to do that. Lacking a law against adultery is not an unethical situation, it simply leaves the responsibility up to the individual.
Legalizing abortion doesn't endorse abortion, it only leaves the ethical question up to the people who deserve to make the choice: the parents.