What you did in actuality was to toss around a few smug insults and then go on to deny the existence of the reams or peer-supported research that exist on this issue.
Yeah, this is slashdot where we have higher standards. Throw a car metaphor in there for god's sake!
So you think that congress should be able to pass any law, whether constitutional or not?
I think CL64 was saying SCOTUS doesn't actually have that power in the constitution, everyone just acts like they do. Although he did seem to be implying that's the way it ought to be, he didn't actually say that.
They can be signed today and nullified ten years from now, if we so wish.
Except by then there will be more parasitic industries with their government's ear who have an interest in keeping ACTA going, so few countries who sign it are going to. Certainly not the ones' I'd expect would be able to walk away from it without consequences. The US, for example, -could- say "Shove ACTA up your ass" and probably wouldn't face sanctions or whatever ACTA's enforcement was/is going to be, but it would be it's own ass it would be talking about, so I don't see that happening.
I was required to read the Abstract on every article. "I do not care if you understand it, just read it." was his instructions. One thing I learned was: Command of a discipline was seldom accompanied by a ability to communicate it in simple English sentences.
Within the constraints of an -abstract-? Well, that's not surprising. I would wager that not many people could describe a multi-year project to someone lacking the background information on their project, and simultaneously fit the real purpose of the paragraph, which is to help people well versed in the background decide whether or not to read it.
Take a textbook on advanced calculus, cut it down to three pages, don't cut out any information, and make it so that a person who didn't already know advanced calculus could understand it. That's the problem with uninitiated reading abstracts: it's not really for them. In fact, the whole article, intro and all, is usually constrained to be too short to effectively explain it to someone who hadn't read multiple other papers on the subject.
Or we scientists could form a hypotenoose and hang ourselves with it, rather than hearing protests about geoengineering. Or a hypothesis that this is going to be extremely annoying beardless of whether or not we are quirky.
TFA says "The fear of being identified with the 'number of the beast' stems from the Bible's Revelation chapter 13 Verse 17 which says '...and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name.'"
So I guess there's plenty of wiggle room even if one is not willing to liberally interpret to the point of believing almost the opposite of what is actually said in that book, which there are plenty of people who do that. "Don't murder" eh? Oh, well they -meant- to add 'unless it's an abortion doctor.'"
Agreed, but it is noteworthy that for once religious paranoia, and especially that LSD-induced last part of the bible, has a good effect on the world See "Jesus Camp" for plenty of examples of it being much more annoying and dangerous.
It made total sense given the target audience: social networking hillbillies.
b.) What was the point of the device again?
It had a "spot" that was hyped up. Safe to assume the point of that was for the development team to make joking references to the female anatomy.
c.) Ads were annoying and made no sense
At least they weren't inaccurate, at least the one's I saw: they for some reason tended to emphasize that if you visited all your "friends" on facebook in the real world, it would be a waste of time. You have to admire a marketing strategy that takes a product made for idiots, and then essentially tells those idiots that they are idiots.
Hell you could set up a piece of string with some motors and sensors to relay ip data IPOP (IP Over Pullies)
Don't do that! All it would take would be someone mentioning that one could transmit child porn on that, and then suddenly there would be a ban in the US on string!
There will be no change in Orwellianism in either the UK or the US unless and until the entire system is reformed.
What system would that be exactly? It seems like you might be suggesting there's a "perfect system" out there, and that the only way to improve things is all at once by finding that perfect system, and then everything will be alright.
Reform however you like. There's still going to be people interested in corruption, thus there's always going to be corruption. Slow incremental reforms do have value. They don't happen as fast as we'd like. That's probably a good thing, since we can be decieved, or can be wrong.
For example:
Witness the total farce that is the "change" Obama brought in... Bring the troops home?
You thought that was going to be immediate or something? As of 18 hours ago, he is going to bring the troops home, next year. It's a controversial question, politically of course, and more to the point, we don't seem to have done anything besides knock down the Taliban and kill a bunch of people. The fear of course is that we'll create a failed state which will breed more terrorists. Good reasons not to act rashly, you'd want to be absolutely sure you couldn't accomplish the goals before pulling out, and that's a complex thing to measure.
The willingness to actually set a date, and say "Okay, if we haven't done anything by this point, it's time to admit openly that this war was pointless, and admit that we might not be able to fix the situation" is courage that the previous administration didn't have.
In the end, those of you who were saying "bring the troops home this instant" may be vindicated, that might have saved a lot of time, effort, and lives, but without the benefit of a crystal ball, being cavalier with withdrawing our support after we created a vacuum would have been idiotic.
And for god's sake, the ads on Hulu are as un-irritating as advertising can possibly be.
Some shows at least, they show the same commercial multiple times. For instance a certain embarrassing Japanese anime show. That fucking 5 hour energy drink guy looks like a douche and gets played every other break, that's -far- more annoying than 5 less annoying commercials you only see once.
Other than that, I agree. Many of the ads are actually for charities, which isn't bad.
Over the course of a 40-minute show, you have to watch maybe five 30-second spots, as opposed to eight or ten per break on television.
Could we please stop submitting blurbs like this, at least without the real articles. TFA in this case was two pictures, or else there was more behind a registration wall, and the -actual journal article- was on plosone, a completely free and open online publication, you don't even have to give them your e-mail address. I understand many of us don't like paywalls, but even when there is one, a link to it would be nice for the details, and again, this one didn't have a paywall./rant
Anyway, the conclusion summary is "Our results indicate this device as a useful tool to assist in the identification of early neoplastic changes in epithelial tissues. This portable, inexpensive unit may be particularly appropriate for use at the point-of-care in low-resource settings." I'm not a doctor, nor am I a cancer biologist, but I don't think the language is just not wanting to overstate things. I think the authors would say this should never be taken as the first or last screening method for identifying cancers. I think the goal here is if your doctor thinks you might have a cancerous growth in your mouth, he might pull out a camera, this fiber optic device, and some proflavine, and see if he thought a biopsy would be justified. He looks at the cells under this thing, sees completely normal looking cells, and he suggests not doing the biopsy. He sees abnormal cells, and he orders a biopsy, they take some tissue from it the pathology lab stains it and makes a call as to whether you need it removed or not.
Could also be used in surgery, your doctor detects a growth on your prostate/ovaries/whatever, is concerned enough to do exploratory surgery. They put you under, open you up, get to the growth... in at least some circumstances, they do a biopsy, send it down to the pathology department for staining to see if it's cancerous or not, the path lab calls up and says cancer or not, and based on that, they'll remove it or not. A friend of mine, for example, had surgery to remove one ovary after it developed a tumor of some type, biopsies from the other were sent to the lab so they could tell whether they needed to remove that one too. Seems like this method of being able to image it right there could save some time.
Again, I really don't know, have no experience with surgery, and might be misremembering the secondhand account there, so take that with several grains of salt.
It seems to me though that measuring the effectiveness of this procedure is outside the scope. The authors are from a bioengineering lab. Their goal was developing a tool, this is a few steps away from testing the positive vs negative, nobody is getting ahead of themselves.
So then actually do something rather than making empty threats on the Internet while using a pseudonym.
Such as? Discussing it on the internet seems about as effective as anything else. If you're suggesting he start a revolutionary war over this, well, I'm not sure why you're trying to get him killed.
Give some money to EFF or another organization opposed to ACTA would be the best I could think of.
Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe?
One potential reason: that sounds like the start of poorly-written sitcom, not a serious privacy problem. Not only would that have convinced fewer people it's a problem, but then some network would be premiering a horrible new show this season.
Were the WB still around, it would probably be starting right about now in fact.
Wow, you posted that in a flash. Some people would have gone with a lame "first" something. Flash post or something. But not you, you fluffed the puns up.
Props to you and the other retards modding you insightful.
Hmm, you got the same mod apparently for insulting GP and the mods. Didn't even explain why you thought GP was wrong. That does indeed indicate something is wrong with the mods today, buncha stupid-head dummies that they are.
Very true. I meant to say something along the lines of "So since punishing the wrong people is a whole lot easier, that's exactly what the government will do to make it look like justice was served, even though the criminals got off without so much as an interrogation at a police station, and the innocent people lost their money."
I was going to say that, but then a coworker walked in and I just hit submit.
Find and punish the malefactors to deter future screwups
That's never going to happen even if anyone were serious about it. Making BP's investors pay is a whole lot easier than getting those responsible to pay.
Many Christian's oppose the latter, and almost none is against the former.
I'm not even a Christian and I'm *&*#$# tired of the BS that comes from confusing the two positions. Seeing people attack straw men is annoying after the millionth time.
If you hate straw men, this is really the wrong place for you, it's kind of all we do here, be it on MS, stem cells, or car metaphors. You'll probably also want to avoid the "wizard of oz fanclub page."
Isn't the bloodstream supposed to distribute stem cells and do repairs like this itself?
No. Stem cells in an adult appear to all be fate restricted to some degree. Embryonic stem cells are often called "pluripotent" meaning they can turn into any type of cell you need. Pluripotent stem cells disappear long before you're born, early on they start to specialize into three broad types of cells, and they get more and more specialized from then on, most appear to eventually get to the point where they'll make just one or two types of cells and that's it. Adult stem cell populations seem to be fate restricted as well. Stem cells in the later embryo and after birth are usually found in discrete niches tightly controlled, not just circulating. Some adult tissues appear to lack stem cells entirely too, I guess the cornea is one of those tissues.
One of the best characterized stem cell systems is in the intestines, you need to refresh your intestines fairly rapidly, its a tough environment for the cells making up your gut and they just don't last very long, getting sloughed every few days if I remember correctly. Those cells spring up from transient amplifying cells which divide very fast to make large numbers of intestine cells, but the transient amplifying cells come from stem cells located somewhere in the wall of the intestine. Last I heard, there was some controversy over which cells of the intestinal crypt were the actual stem cells, but they do appear to be in the walls of the intestine itself, not the bloodstream.
Furthermore, it appears that the intestinal stem cells only produce the lining of the intestine, they don't make the cornea, blood, nerves, bones, skin, etc. Maybe you could find a way to coax them into doing that, but as far as I know, that hasn't been shown yet.
Bottom line though, the stem cells that make up the intestine are in the intestine and make up only intestine. It appears most adult stem cells are similar: they make one type of cell from specific locations. Corneas do not appear to have a natural stem cell reservoir, so if you damage them you appear to be SOL as far as nature goes (I guess? Not really too familiar with the eye). In the present study, it looks like the researchers took stem cells from right around the cornea, not the bloodstream. Maybe cells from around the cornea naturally have the ability to differentiate into cornea type cells, I'd have to do some background reading.
But in general, no, there are not pluripotent stem cells floating around in your bloodstream. In cases where adult mice have had pluripotent stem cells injected into their bloodstream, they develop horrible tumors at those sites which are a complex mix of several different types of cells, a teratoma. I think the interpretation there is that stem cells generally need to be under tight control, which can't happen in the blood stream, or else you'll get them doing things you don't want them to do.
Slashdot Mirror
What you did in actuality was to toss around a few smug insults and then go on to deny the existence of the reams or peer-supported research that exist on this issue.
Yeah, this is slashdot where we have higher standards. Throw a car metaphor in there for god's sake!
So you think that congress should be able to pass any law, whether constitutional or not?
I think CL64 was saying SCOTUS doesn't actually have that power in the constitution, everyone just acts like they do. Although he did seem to be implying that's the way it ought to be, he didn't actually say that.
They can be signed today and nullified ten years from now, if we so wish.
Except by then there will be more parasitic industries with their government's ear who have an interest in keeping ACTA going, so few countries who sign it are going to. Certainly not the ones' I'd expect would be able to walk away from it without consequences. The US, for example, -could- say "Shove ACTA up your ass" and probably wouldn't face sanctions or whatever ACTA's enforcement was/is going to be, but it would be it's own ass it would be talking about, so I don't see that happening.
I was required to read the Abstract on every article. "I do not care if you understand it, just read it." was his instructions. One thing I learned was: Command of a discipline was seldom accompanied by a ability to communicate it in simple English sentences.
Within the constraints of an -abstract-? Well, that's not surprising. I would wager that not many people could describe a multi-year project to someone lacking the background information on their project, and simultaneously fit the real purpose of the paragraph, which is to help people well versed in the background decide whether or not to read it.
Take a textbook on advanced calculus, cut it down to three pages, don't cut out any information, and make it so that a person who didn't already know advanced calculus could understand it. That's the problem with uninitiated reading abstracts: it's not really for them. In fact, the whole article, intro and all, is usually constrained to be too short to effectively explain it to someone who hadn't read multiple other papers on the subject.
"Well tough shit! It's OUR culture not yours so fuck off." - The People of these 50 United States
"You must not have gotten the memo on the latest version of ACTA... oh right, it's secret. Well, about that..." - RIAA
FTFY
Or we scientists could form a hypotenoose and hang ourselves with it, rather than hearing protests about geoengineering. Or a hypothesis that this is going to be extremely annoying beardless of whether or not we are quirky.
TFA says "The fear of being identified with the 'number of the beast' stems from the Bible's Revelation chapter 13 Verse 17 which says '...and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name.'"
So I guess there's plenty of wiggle room even if one is not willing to liberally interpret to the point of believing almost the opposite of what is actually said in that book, which there are plenty of people who do that. "Don't murder" eh? Oh, well they -meant- to add 'unless it's an abortion doctor.'"
Agreed, but it is noteworthy that for once religious paranoia, and especially that LSD-induced last part of the bible, has a good effect on the world See "Jesus Camp" for plenty of examples of it being much more annoying and dangerous.
...and that's when I decided I was done with slashdot for a while.
a.) Name was horrible and made no sense.
It made total sense given the target audience: social networking hillbillies.
b.) What was the point of the device again?
It had a "spot" that was hyped up. Safe to assume the point of that was for the development team to make joking references to the female anatomy.
c.) Ads were annoying and made no sense
At least they weren't inaccurate, at least the one's I saw: they for some reason tended to emphasize that if you visited all your "friends" on facebook in the real world, it would be a waste of time. You have to admire a marketing strategy that takes a product made for idiots, and then essentially tells those idiots that they are idiots.
That is indeed the least of their problems. I've heard their computers were themselves full of
(puts on sunglasses)
spyware.
Hell you could set up a piece of string with some motors and sensors to relay ip data IPOP (IP Over Pullies)
Don't do that! All it would take would be someone mentioning that one could transmit child porn on that, and then suddenly there would be a ban in the US on string!
Think of the kites, shoes, and fishermen!
There will be no change in Orwellianism in either the UK or the US unless and until the entire system is reformed.
What system would that be exactly? It seems like you might be suggesting there's a "perfect system" out there, and that the only way to improve things is all at once by finding that perfect system, and then everything will be alright.
Reform however you like. There's still going to be people interested in corruption, thus there's always going to be corruption. Slow incremental reforms do have value. They don't happen as fast as we'd like. That's probably a good thing, since we can be decieved, or can be wrong.
For example:
Witness the total farce that is the "change" Obama brought in... Bring the troops home?
You thought that was going to be immediate or something? As of 18 hours ago, he is going to bring the troops home, next year. It's a controversial question, politically of course, and more to the point, we don't seem to have done anything besides knock down the Taliban and kill a bunch of people. The fear of course is that we'll create a failed state which will breed more terrorists. Good reasons not to act rashly, you'd want to be absolutely sure you couldn't accomplish the goals before pulling out, and that's a complex thing to measure.
The willingness to actually set a date, and say "Okay, if we haven't done anything by this point, it's time to admit openly that this war was pointless, and admit that we might not be able to fix the situation" is courage that the previous administration didn't have.
In the end, those of you who were saying "bring the troops home this instant" may be vindicated, that might have saved a lot of time, effort, and lives, but without the benefit of a crystal ball, being cavalier with withdrawing our support after we created a vacuum would have been idiotic.
And for god's sake, the ads on Hulu are as un-irritating as advertising can possibly be.
Some shows at least, they show the same commercial multiple times. For instance a certain embarrassing Japanese anime show. That fucking 5 hour energy drink guy looks like a douche and gets played every other break, that's -far- more annoying than 5 less annoying commercials you only see once.
Other than that, I agree. Many of the ads are actually for charities, which isn't bad.
Over the course of a 40-minute show, you have to watch maybe five 30-second spots, as opposed to eight or ten per break on television.
For now.
The actual link to the actual article.
Could we please stop submitting blurbs like this, at least without the real articles. TFA in this case was two pictures, or else there was more behind a registration wall, and the -actual journal article- was on plosone, a completely free and open online publication, you don't even have to give them your e-mail address. I understand many of us don't like paywalls, but even when there is one, a link to it would be nice for the details, and again, this one didn't have a paywall. /rant
Anyway, the conclusion summary is "Our results indicate this device as a useful tool to assist in the identification of early neoplastic changes in epithelial tissues. This portable, inexpensive unit may be particularly appropriate for use at the point-of-care in low-resource settings." I'm not a doctor, nor am I a cancer biologist, but I don't think the language is just not wanting to overstate things. I think the authors would say this should never be taken as the first or last screening method for identifying cancers. I think the goal here is if your doctor thinks you might have a cancerous growth in your mouth, he might pull out a camera, this fiber optic device, and some proflavine, and see if he thought a biopsy would be justified. He looks at the cells under this thing, sees completely normal looking cells, and he suggests not doing the biopsy. He sees abnormal cells, and he orders a biopsy, they take some tissue from it the pathology lab stains it and makes a call as to whether you need it removed or not.
Could also be used in surgery, your doctor detects a growth on your prostate/ovaries/whatever, is concerned enough to do exploratory surgery. They put you under, open you up, get to the growth... in at least some circumstances, they do a biopsy, send it down to the pathology department for staining to see if it's cancerous or not, the path lab calls up and says cancer or not, and based on that, they'll remove it or not. A friend of mine, for example, had surgery to remove one ovary after it developed a tumor of some type, biopsies from the other were sent to the lab so they could tell whether they needed to remove that one too. Seems like this method of being able to image it right there could save some time.
Again, I really don't know, have no experience with surgery, and might be misremembering the secondhand account there, so take that with several grains of salt.
It seems to me though that measuring the effectiveness of this procedure is outside the scope. The authors are from a bioengineering lab. Their goal was developing a tool, this is a few steps away from testing the positive vs negative, nobody is getting ahead of themselves.
So then actually do something rather than making empty threats on the Internet while using a pseudonym.
Such as? Discussing it on the internet seems about as effective as anything else. If you're suggesting he start a revolutionary war over this, well, I'm not sure why you're trying to get him killed.
Give some money to EFF or another organization opposed to ACTA would be the best I could think of.
If they aren't psychotic bitches then the only explanation is that they are sucking your buddy tom's dick every weekend.
I'm confused as to how fellating tom would be a treatment for that or any psychological problem, but hey, whatever works.
Why not use one where a person is friends with both a fundamentalist christian and a well-known atheist, or a homosexual and a homophobe?
One potential reason: that sounds like the start of poorly-written sitcom, not a serious privacy problem. Not only would that have convinced fewer people it's a problem, but then some network would be premiering a horrible new show this season.
Were the WB still around, it would probably be starting right about now in fact.
[insert stupid flash pun]
Wow, you posted that in a flash. Some people would have gone with a lame "first" something. Flash post or something. But not you, you fluffed the puns up.
That's all the puns I have, I shot my load there.
Props to you and the other retards modding you insightful.
Hmm, you got the same mod apparently for insulting GP and the mods. Didn't even explain why you thought GP was wrong. That does indeed indicate something is wrong with the mods today, buncha stupid-head dummies that they are.
So, uhhh.. could you maybe clarify what exactly it is you're opposed to...
I think he was reasonably clear that he was opposed to people flying cars into his house... :-P
Very true. I meant to say something along the lines of "So since punishing the wrong people is a whole lot easier, that's exactly what the government will do to make it look like justice was served, even though the criminals got off without so much as an interrogation at a police station, and the innocent people lost their money."
I was going to say that, but then a coworker walked in and I just hit submit.
Find and punish the malefactors to deter future screwups
That's never going to happen even if anyone were serious about it. Making BP's investors pay is a whole lot easier than getting those responsible to pay.
Many Christian's oppose the latter, and almost none is against the former.
I'm not even a Christian and I'm *&*#$# tired of the BS that comes from confusing the two positions. Seeing people attack straw men is annoying after the millionth time.
If you hate straw men, this is really the wrong place for you, it's kind of all we do here, be it on MS, stem cells, or car metaphors. You'll probably also want to avoid the "wizard of oz fanclub page."
Isn't the bloodstream supposed to distribute stem cells and do repairs like this itself?
No. Stem cells in an adult appear to all be fate restricted to some degree. Embryonic stem cells are often called "pluripotent" meaning they can turn into any type of cell you need. Pluripotent stem cells disappear long before you're born, early on they start to specialize into three broad types of cells, and they get more and more specialized from then on, most appear to eventually get to the point where they'll make just one or two types of cells and that's it. Adult stem cell populations seem to be fate restricted as well. Stem cells in the later embryo and after birth are usually found in discrete niches tightly controlled, not just circulating. Some adult tissues appear to lack stem cells entirely too, I guess the cornea is one of those tissues.
One of the best characterized stem cell systems is in the intestines, you need to refresh your intestines fairly rapidly, its a tough environment for the cells making up your gut and they just don't last very long, getting sloughed every few days if I remember correctly. Those cells spring up from transient amplifying cells which divide very fast to make large numbers of intestine cells, but the transient amplifying cells come from stem cells located somewhere in the wall of the intestine. Last I heard, there was some controversy over which cells of the intestinal crypt were the actual stem cells, but they do appear to be in the walls of the intestine itself, not the bloodstream.
Furthermore, it appears that the intestinal stem cells only produce the lining of the intestine, they don't make the cornea, blood, nerves, bones, skin, etc. Maybe you could find a way to coax them into doing that, but as far as I know, that hasn't been shown yet.
Bottom line though, the stem cells that make up the intestine are in the intestine and make up only intestine. It appears most adult stem cells are similar: they make one type of cell from specific locations. Corneas do not appear to have a natural stem cell reservoir, so if you damage them you appear to be SOL as far as nature goes (I guess? Not really too familiar with the eye). In the present study, it looks like the researchers took stem cells from right around the cornea, not the bloodstream. Maybe cells from around the cornea naturally have the ability to differentiate into cornea type cells, I'd have to do some background reading.
But in general, no, there are not pluripotent stem cells floating around in your bloodstream. In cases where adult mice have had pluripotent stem cells injected into their bloodstream, they develop horrible tumors at those sites which are a complex mix of several different types of cells, a teratoma. I think the interpretation there is that stem cells generally need to be under tight control, which can't happen in the blood stream, or else you'll get them doing things you don't want them to do.