Poison Beer Incorporated will now be concentrating on Thalidomide Cola, where it sees the future of its toxic drink product sales.
Not to take a joke seriously, but Thalidomide isn't very "toxic." That was one of it's selling points in fact. It is a potent teratogen, but those of us who are fully formed, it appears safer than most medicines.
It had been tested extensively on mice and found to be nontoxic. It was so harmless, in fact, that no lethal dose could be established.
If you do or say something really stupid, chances are nobody will ever let you live it down anyway.
Notable exceptions include politicians, corporations, and especially political figures on corporate cable.
"Oliver North from Fox news is a felon and was illegally and secretly getting arms to Iran? That can't be right, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be on teevee unless he was a war hero/saint."
When they're notable nerds, or die in a way that is of interest to nerds (falling off a launch pad qualifies) then the Slashdot stories for them are... uh... on slashdot.
You could argue that some natural disasters might be preventable, and that would fall under promoting the general welfare, but that's as far as you get.
Disaster preparedness, and recovery afterwards would fall squarely in the general welfare section. "That's as far as you get" seems pretty far to me.
Furthermore, I'm not making a constitutional argument. I'm saying: in my opinion governments SHOULD have a responsibility to limit the damage of natural disasters, regardless of what it says in the constitution. Obviously times have changed since the constitution. There's more that governments can do today in emergencies. For example, during the drafting of the constitution, tsunami warning systems were limited to asking yourself "Is there a big wave crushing everything?"
Japan is among one of the most prepared places for powerful earthquakes, and look how helpless their government still is to do anything to have stopped the earthquake from killing thousands?
I'm betting dollars to yen that the government was the one that MADE IT one of the most prepared places for earthquakes with strict building codes. Japanese businesses are like all businesses in that they'll gladly cut corners on safety to save a buck. Free market forces did not demand that those buildings be able to withstand unusually powerful quakes, just as they haven't in California, though businesses there have known a massive quake is coming for years.
The UN put Libya on the Human Rights Council. They only suspended their involvement when Gaddafi started fucking over the people who asked for better government. I don't want the UN involved. At all.
Pointing at one unrelated mistake an institution has made and saying "so they shouldn't handle it" is flawed, since all institutions have made mistakes. As far as arguments go, it's weak because two can play at that game. For example: "corporations screwed over the economy. I don't want corporations involved. At all."
I can also be less lazy and point out specific mistakes ICANN has made and say the same thing.
Only difference is with wind generators, you only risk making a dent in the shrubbery.
I'm guessing that's in fact not the only difference between wind and nuclear power in the case of Japan, and I'm going to guess further that those differences were what made them build a nuclear plant rather than wind generators.
Virtually everything in your post needs citations. "The Government's job is to provide protection from foreign powers." I think most people would agree that is ONE of their jobs, yes, but your favorite libertarian thinker saying something doesn't make it fact.
I think one of the government's jobs is to protect against natural disasters or mitigate the damage, since as other people have pointed out, the free market sure doesn't do that.
If Japan had deficit spent more on earthquake research, they might have been able to avoid this disaster.
They did. Their buildings are much more earthquake-resistant than any other country. This was an extremely powerful quake, one of the most powerful recorded, there's inevitably going to be damage. Anytime you have an extremely powerful natural disaster, you're going to encounter problems.
Aside from fusing the earth's plates with nukes or moving the entire island away from the fault lines, I don't know what you're suggesting they could have been more proactive about.
Have you every considered that those people are simpily organisng people to pick them up, or trying to meet with people and that is why they are using there phone
Not on the bus to the college campus where I work.
Odd coincidence, but I didn't that episode. The actual inspiration came from a poster on the DMV wall the other day, which I saw while renewing my license.
If you think the state owns your body, have fun with that philosophy as the state can now do whatever they want with you.
Well I think the problem here is that straw men have no organs, but if they did, ownership of said organs would be a very interesting issue. Maybe I'd even make a statement on who owns straw man organs. But I didn't, did I?
The much more obvious reason why there is a shortage of organs, and why organs are so expensive, is that it is illegal to sell one's own organs. An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
See, someone less out of touch with reality who doesn't think capitalism solves all problems would suggest that you should have to opt-out of organ donation rather than opt in. That would solve the problem WITHOUT encouraging organ theft, desperate people selling their organs while still alive, and all sorts of other hideous abuses.
Oh, but wait, then it would be harder for anyone to make millions in organ trading... well then never mind, it's clearly socialism and that's evil.
Its not the volume that bothers me. Its the content, or lack thereof. Always fucking "OH HEY, WHAT UP, JUST ON THE BUS" or "HEY, I'M ON MY WAY HOME... Oh no way, they said that?!"
So boring. Talk about your sex lives (unless you're ugly.) Make something up if you don't have anything. At least offer your insight into, say, current political events. If it's actually insightful, good. If it's idiotic drivel, that gives me reason to feel superior, which is at least a little better than a boring conversation. Naturally it would be better for them to STFU, but I'm willing to compromise.
Time to stand up to the "let's not offend the Muslims" crowd. Every time they claim to be offended by people in the western world exercising their western rights (whether it's to draw cartoons or write novels) we should tell them to go fuck themselves.
I'm skeptical that we're dealing with one big population that is offended at those things and is also trying to nuke us. Rather, I think we're dealing with a large number of people who are offended by such things, who would maybe burn an American flag and throw rocks but are mostly harmless.
Then there is a much much much smaller group who is trying to get nukes to destroy us because they're messed up in the head. Maybe Al Quaeda spouts off about the danish cartoons, but even if we were completely nice and respectful to them, and even if we were to convert to Islam, they'd still try to destroy us. It's worth keeping in mind that most Islamic terrorism is focused against other Muslims, even ones who were being respectful of their own religion.
It really doesn't matter if they're offended by "The Satanic Verses" for example: the harmless ones don't matter (and of course it's our right to say whatever we want) and the dangerous ones are trying to destroy us anyway. Their taking offense to whatever is a separate issue from terrorism.
That's a good use our our civilization's precious natural resources.
Well that's kind of who we are as a civilization. We climb mountains because they are there. We landed on the moon, half because we wanted to challenge ourselves (and half to show our economic system was better than communism...).
It's a general feature of life to use resources like mad without thinking long-term until the resource is nearly depleted and we have no choice. Natural selection really grilled that lesson in deep before it gave us brains smart enough to begin to question it.
in the absence of genetic sequencing you'd never know they have marfan syndrome.
If they're not showing symptoms, how will this help in the treatment of the patient?
GP pointed out that they have heart problems even with no obvious symptoms. From the wiki page on marfan syndrome
During pregnancy, even in the absence of preconceived cardiovascular abnormality, women with Marfan syndrome are at significant risk of aortic dissection, which is often fatal even when rapidly treated. For this reason, women with Marfan syndrome should receive a thorough assessment prior to conception, and echocardiography should be performed every six to ten weeks during pregnancy, to assess the aortic root diameter.
So if you have Marfan with no symptoms and get pregnant, you could die suddenly. If you know you have Marfan, you can make an informed decision and maybe chose not to get pregnant and risk it.
With all the hundreds of genetic conditions out there, it's a gross generalization to say "If you have sympoms, you don't need sequencing and if you don't have symptoms, you don't need any treatment." Another example: BRCA1 and 2:
Women with an abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene have up to an 60% risk of developing breast cancer by age 90; increased risk of developing ovarian cancer is about 55% for women with BRCA1 mutations and about 25% for women with BRCA2 mutations
You know you have mutations in either one, you better be super vigilant about screening, and might want to rethink a decision to get a mastectomy or remove your ovaries. From a cost/benefit analysis, it's definitely worth knowing.
I find it ironic that whenever a biotech related story gets posted here, the crowd always goes to the extreme worst abuse that tech could be used for, or the most absurd nightmare scenario. Anything using bacteria = whatcouldpossiblygowrong, anything with viruses (even cures) = iamlegend. DNA manipulation will undoubtedly produce zombies. DNA sequencing means the government will steal your DNA and you'll be discriminated against. Somehow. And half of those suggestions are serious.
Yet new computer hardware comes out and people rarely worry about skynet seriously.
In your scenario of screening for driving a car... really? That's what you're worried about? Not "Cheap personalized DNA sequencing will probably save thousands of lives and trillions with preventative care rather than disease treatment," you're going with "This is terrible! The government is going to make me give a semen sample to drive!"
Every technology has good uses and bad uses, sure, but stating this is going to be required to drive a car, as a fact, is paranoia. Stating things like that will make people take the very real threats to privacy less seriously.
Sure, I do see other brands fail after a year or two, but I've seen more brand new defective Linksys routers than I have Netgear routers that dies of old age.
Obviously Cisco is tackling the IPv6 problem proactively: make IPv4 routers with very short half life, so when we to switch to IPv6, the number of people who need to buy a new router will be only slightly higher than normal!
With a little thought one realizes that pencils work by depositing particles, that are only barely attached, on the surface they are used on. Lots of lose particles in zero-G with sensitive electronics is just asking for trouble.
I'm not to proud to admit that I never would have thought of that. The whole "graphite stuck to paper thing" was not something I would have thought about.
Slashdot Mirror
Poison Beer Incorporated will now be concentrating on Thalidomide Cola, where it sees the future of its toxic drink product sales.
Not to take a joke seriously, but Thalidomide isn't very "toxic." That was one of it's selling points in fact. It is a potent teratogen, but those of us who are fully formed, it appears safer than most medicines.
It had been tested extensively on mice and found to be nontoxic. It was so harmless, in fact, that no lethal dose could be established.
Wired
If you do or say something really stupid, chances are nobody will ever let you live it down anyway.
Notable exceptions include politicians, corporations, and especially political figures on corporate cable.
"Oliver North from Fox news is a felon and was illegally and secretly getting arms to Iran? That can't be right, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be on teevee unless he was a war hero/saint."
I do not want to die 'doing what I love.' I would rather die quietly in my sleep at an old age.
You don't love sleeping? Cause I do. Dying in my sleep would -totally- be dying doing one thing I love.
Where are the Slashdot stories for them?
When they're notable nerds, or die in a way that is of interest to nerds (falling off a launch pad qualifies) then the Slashdot stories for them are... uh... on slashdot.
You could argue that some natural disasters might be preventable, and that would fall under promoting the general welfare, but that's as far as you get.
Disaster preparedness, and recovery afterwards would fall squarely in the general welfare section. "That's as far as you get" seems pretty far to me.
Furthermore, I'm not making a constitutional argument. I'm saying: in my opinion governments SHOULD have a responsibility to limit the damage of natural disasters, regardless of what it says in the constitution. Obviously times have changed since the constitution. There's more that governments can do today in emergencies. For example, during the drafting of the constitution, tsunami warning systems were limited to asking yourself "Is there a big wave crushing everything?"
Japan is among one of the most prepared places for powerful earthquakes, and look how helpless their government still is to do anything to have stopped the earthquake from killing thousands?
I'm betting dollars to yen that the government was the one that MADE IT one of the most prepared places for earthquakes with strict building codes. Japanese businesses are like all businesses in that they'll gladly cut corners on safety to save a buck. Free market forces did not demand that those buildings be able to withstand unusually powerful quakes, just as they haven't in California, though businesses there have known a massive quake is coming for years.
The UN put Libya on the Human Rights Council. They only suspended their involvement when Gaddafi started fucking over the people who asked for better government. I don't want the UN involved. At all.
Pointing at one unrelated mistake an institution has made and saying "so they shouldn't handle it" is flawed, since all institutions have made mistakes. As far as arguments go, it's weak because two can play at that game. For example: "corporations screwed over the economy. I don't want corporations involved. At all."
I can also be less lazy and point out specific mistakes ICANN has made and say the same thing.
Only difference is with wind generators, you only risk making a dent in the shrubbery.
I'm guessing that's in fact not the only difference between wind and nuclear power in the case of Japan, and I'm going to guess further that those differences were what made them build a nuclear plant rather than wind generators.
Virtually everything in your post needs citations. "The Government's job is to provide protection from foreign powers." I think most people would agree that is ONE of their jobs, yes, but your favorite libertarian thinker saying something doesn't make it fact. I think one of the government's jobs is to protect against natural disasters or mitigate the damage, since as other people have pointed out, the free market sure doesn't do that.
makes it sound like some complete stranger went on facebook and asked "Hey, give me your email address, blood type and shoe size" and got an answer
There was a convincing scam for a great deal on some kickass bionic feet, so...
Yet another repeating news story.... How many times Atlantis has been located by now?
Zero, which is why we should wait until someone finds Atlantis to say "Researchers FIND atlantis."
That doesn't mean the methodology or the finding here isn't interesting.
If Japan had deficit spent more on earthquake research, they might have been able to avoid this disaster.
They did. Their buildings are much more earthquake-resistant than any other country. This was an extremely powerful quake, one of the most powerful recorded, there's inevitably going to be damage. Anytime you have an extremely powerful natural disaster, you're going to encounter problems. Aside from fusing the earth's plates with nukes or moving the entire island away from the fault lines, I don't know what you're suggesting they could have been more proactive about.
Have you every considered that those people are simpily organisng people to pick them up, or trying to meet with people and that is why they are using there phone
Not on the bus to the college campus where I work.
"Do no evil, but don't get in the way of letting others do it."
In practice, that is preferable to policing others, yes.
Odd coincidence, but I didn't that episode. The actual inspiration came from a poster on the DMV wall the other day, which I saw while renewing my license.
If you think the state owns your body, have fun with that philosophy as the state can now do whatever they want with you.
Well I think the problem here is that straw men have no organs, but if they did, ownership of said organs would be a very interesting issue. Maybe I'd even make a statement on who owns straw man organs. But I didn't, did I?
The much more obvious reason why there is a shortage of organs, and why organs are so expensive, is that it is illegal to sell one's own organs. An elderly person has no incentive to donate his organs on death, if his surviving loved ones do not profit from it.
See, someone less out of touch with reality who doesn't think capitalism solves all problems would suggest that you should have to opt-out of organ donation rather than opt in. That would solve the problem WITHOUT encouraging organ theft, desperate people selling their organs while still alive, and all sorts of other hideous abuses.
Oh, but wait, then it would be harder for anyone to make millions in organ trading... well then never mind, it's clearly socialism and that's evil.
You'd start world war 3 just to bang a 50 year old woman? I must be on slashdot.
Its not the volume that bothers me. Its the content, or lack thereof. Always fucking "OH HEY, WHAT UP, JUST ON THE BUS" or "HEY, I'M ON MY WAY HOME... Oh no way, they said that?!"
So boring. Talk about your sex lives (unless you're ugly.) Make something up if you don't have anything. At least offer your insight into, say, current political events. If it's actually insightful, good. If it's idiotic drivel, that gives me reason to feel superior, which is at least a little better than a boring conversation. Naturally it would be better for them to STFU, but I'm willing to compromise.
Time to stand up to the "let's not offend the Muslims" crowd. Every time they claim to be offended by people in the western world exercising their western rights (whether it's to draw cartoons or write novels) we should tell them to go fuck themselves.
I'm skeptical that we're dealing with one big population that is offended at those things and is also trying to nuke us. Rather, I think we're dealing with a large number of people who are offended by such things, who would maybe burn an American flag and throw rocks but are mostly harmless.
Then there is a much much much smaller group who is trying to get nukes to destroy us because they're messed up in the head. Maybe Al Quaeda spouts off about the danish cartoons, but even if we were completely nice and respectful to them, and even if we were to convert to Islam, they'd still try to destroy us. It's worth keeping in mind that most Islamic terrorism is focused against other Muslims, even ones who were being respectful of their own religion.
It really doesn't matter if they're offended by "The Satanic Verses" for example: the harmless ones don't matter (and of course it's our right to say whatever we want) and the dangerous ones are trying to destroy us anyway. Their taking offense to whatever is a separate issue from terrorism.
That's a good use our our civilization's precious natural resources.
Well that's kind of who we are as a civilization. We climb mountains because they are there. We landed on the moon, half because we wanted to challenge ourselves (and half to show our economic system was better than communism...).
It's a general feature of life to use resources like mad without thinking long-term until the resource is nearly depleted and we have no choice. Natural selection really grilled that lesson in deep before it gave us brains smart enough to begin to question it.
If humans can't beat a computer at 'Jeopardy!' why should we trust them to make the right call on fourth down in the Super Bowl?
Good point. I will replace the head coach of my NFL team with a computer as soon as I'm done having dinner with the queen of England.
in the absence of genetic sequencing you'd never know they have marfan syndrome.
If they're not showing symptoms, how will this help in the treatment of the patient?
GP pointed out that they have heart problems even with no obvious symptoms. From the wiki page on marfan syndrome
During pregnancy, even in the absence of preconceived cardiovascular abnormality, women with Marfan syndrome are at significant risk of aortic dissection, which is often fatal even when rapidly treated. For this reason, women with Marfan syndrome should receive a thorough assessment prior to conception, and echocardiography should be performed every six to ten weeks during pregnancy, to assess the aortic root diameter.
So if you have Marfan with no symptoms and get pregnant, you could die suddenly. If you know you have Marfan, you can make an informed decision and maybe chose not to get pregnant and risk it.
With all the hundreds of genetic conditions out there, it's a gross generalization to say "If you have sympoms, you don't need sequencing and if you don't have symptoms, you don't need any treatment." Another example: BRCA1 and 2:
Women with an abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene have up to an 60% risk of developing breast cancer by age 90; increased risk of developing ovarian cancer is about 55% for women with BRCA1 mutations and about 25% for women with BRCA2 mutations
You know you have mutations in either one, you better be super vigilant about screening, and might want to rethink a decision to get a mastectomy or remove your ovaries. From a cost/benefit analysis, it's definitely worth knowing.
I find it ironic that whenever a biotech related story gets posted here, the crowd always goes to the extreme worst abuse that tech could be used for, or the most absurd nightmare scenario. Anything using bacteria = whatcouldpossiblygowrong, anything with viruses (even cures) = iamlegend. DNA manipulation will undoubtedly produce zombies. DNA sequencing means the government will steal your DNA and you'll be discriminated against. Somehow. And half of those suggestions are serious.
Yet new computer hardware comes out and people rarely worry about skynet seriously.
In your scenario of screening for driving a car... really? That's what you're worried about? Not "Cheap personalized DNA sequencing will probably save thousands of lives and trillions with preventative care rather than disease treatment," you're going with "This is terrible! The government is going to make me give a semen sample to drive!"
Every technology has good uses and bad uses, sure, but stating this is going to be required to drive a car, as a fact, is paranoia. Stating things like that will make people take the very real threats to privacy less seriously.
Sure, I do see other brands fail after a year or two, but I've seen more brand new defective Linksys routers than I have Netgear routers that dies of old age.
Obviously Cisco is tackling the IPv6 problem proactively: make IPv4 routers with very short half life, so when we to switch to IPv6, the number of people who need to buy a new router will be only slightly higher than normal!
With a little thought one realizes that pencils work by depositing particles, that are only barely attached, on the surface they are used on. Lots of lose particles in zero-G with sensitive electronics is just asking for trouble.
I'm not to proud to admit that I never would have thought of that. The whole "graphite stuck to paper thing" was not something I would have thought about.