Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?
I agree insofar as "these people" refers specifically to "heads of Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives" who are wasting a lot of money, refusing to admit they bought snake oil, and then handing them out to Iraq's own good men (and probably not many women) who are putting their lives on the line.
Because those people are assholes and any country deserves better than that.
I also notice that no appliance I own in the USA uses insulation on the live pins of the plug to prevent accidental shocks when the plug is slightly out of the socket,
Uh... does that actually, you know, happen ever? I've been plugging and unplugging stuff for a while now, over 25 years, often while drunk, and the only times I've been shocked while plugging or unplugging things are when I realize what a rats nest I've made around the electrical sockets.
(We're talking mentally shocked, just for clarity sake, not like zzzap.)
but lets give MS the benefit of the doubt. After all, haven't they earned our trust? I'll take them at their word that stealing windows = malware. Fortunately, I don't have to steal windows anymore, a guy from nigeria says I'll be rich soon.
I'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management. just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.
Really? I for one am certain that they will continue with the exact same rhetoric. It's a good scapegoat for them, and they don't have a problem with overlooking facts to avoid spending money.
Comcast: "No, we don't need to spend money to relieve congestion, the slowdown is all caused by bittorrent. We need to regulate it." Us: "No it isn't, bittorrent isn't causing the problem, it's now self-regulating. The problem is on your end." Comcast: "The slowdown is all caused by illegal bittorrent transfers! We need to regulate it! Us: "No, see, here's a breakdown of traffic..." Comcast" "THE SLOWDOWN IS ALL CAUSED BY ILLEGAL BITTORRENT TERRORISM! WE NEED TO REGULATE IT!"
Instead of an old-fashioned Boy Scout event of camping and outdoor activities, the attendees were subjected to unrelenting military and police propaganda."
I was in boy scouts years ago. Even before 9/11, the line between "old-fashioned boy scout event" and "state propaganda" was thin.
How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.
Judging by the numbers, I have a guess. If they arrest a terror suspect and search his house and find your contact information, you're on the list. Terrorists incidentally keep a LOT of contacts in things they call "Phone books," suprisingly well organized. Alphabetical and everything. Very neat handwriting as well. Business contacts are usually kept in books with yellowish pages, the significance of which is unknown. What's scary is that they have a number of contacts IN THE GOVERNMENT, on blue pages indicating they may be democrats.
It could just be that the Menfolk of Framingham fancy short fat women. Perhaps they're all short and fat as well.
I think we're also doing the usual extrapolating trends to ridiculous extremes. Lets look at the numbers, the ones in the summary even. 2 cm shorter. 1 kg heavier. By 2409.
2409!
This is 10 generations in the future, in my mind that's projecting 9 to 10 generations longer than is reasonable.
Moreover, 2 cm and 1 kg is not a huge difference! You are about a centimeter shorter at the end of the day than you are at the beginning. 1 kg extra weight isn't "fat" either.
This is news only because of the misleading headline and the opportunity for people to spout nonsense about who should be breeding and who shouldn't. If that trend were to continue for another thousand years, that might be an issue, why, women might be TEN pounds heavier and 3 INCHES shorter! How terrible would that be?!? I weep for my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandsons. Assuming they haven't mastered diet pills by then.
Actually giving EVIDENCE that we're anywhere close to overpopulation worldwide (as opposed to we have an inefficient method of natural resource distribution) also seems taboo. The distinction is important to me. If we reduce the population of the earth by half somehow, I think we'd still be seeing most of the same problems we see now, like carbon emissions. Carbon release doesn't match population. For the topic at hand specifically, carbon emissions, overpopulation is not the cause, and reducing overpopulation would likely not be a solution.
because science (i.e. by the 'academics') typically results in 80% wrong facts, and 20% absolute fact. Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100% fact
Wrong. They can't accept it because in research, things almost never turn out to be "wrong facts" or "absolute fact." Much like everything else in life, it's a simpleton who sees only black and white. I'd say it's actually more like 20% wrong, 75% "not completely sure one way or the other", 5% "I'd bet good money on it."
There aren't absolute facts in science, only theories that have withstood so much testing that no one bothers challenging it any further.
Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.
Exactly.
Additionally, a researcher is not either as good as einstein or valueless. If a researcher has absolutely zero value and makes absolutely no discoveries, he's not going to be employed for long. Most won't win nobel prizes, but all results from research have value. Not to mention that the quality of a researcher doesn't dictate the value of his or her research. Since a lot of research is blind, luck is a factor. Brilliant researchers sometimes have bad luck, investigating things that seem valuable at the time, and investigating them well, but turn out to be dead ends. Bad researchers sometimes get lucky, being in the right place at the right time, taking great suggestions from other researchers.
I feel like I fall somewhat into that last category at the start of my career. Several projects I designed and thought up are turning out to be poorly concieved, while a project that was suggested to me and I initially poo-pooed is starting to look really good.
So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general?
My grandmother, rest her soul, was convinced we were descendants of Robert E Lee (her maiden name was Lee, so really there's no need for lineage tracing or genetic evidence;-) So as a probably-not representative of great great great uncle bob, I'd answer they like virtually killing innocent civilians for complicated reasons, normal human perverseness for one, lack of a moral objection since obvously it isn't real, dramatically reduced consequences from real life, curiosity, humor. And I'd agree, there is just something about taking life that appeals to people on a primitive level. How many of us killed ants with magnifying glasses as kids? Maybe it comes from a fascination with death, trying to come to terms with it.
Some is just the curiosity. Obviously most of us are never going to murder someone in cold blood. One of the only ways we can know how that feels is through simulation. Judging from murdering innocent people in Fallout 3, I'd never be able to stomach it, which I of course would have guessed. On rare occasions I have had nightmares in which I think I have killed someone. The actual murder is not part of the dream sequence, it's just as the scene starts I realize I murdered someone and feel horribly guilty about it. Those nightmares started a long time before Fallout 3 or any videogames for me, BTW. The only way I can intentionally "sample" that guilt is through videogames. Well, I guess there's another way, but again, not going to do that.
For christ's sake, it's a game! You aren't killing anyone
You're preaching to the choir here. The people objecting to videogame violence on the other hand have NEVER been pacified with that line of argument, just as those of us who have no problem with videogame violence have never been convinced by the faulty studies, anecdotes, and flawed reasoning the pro-censorship side employs.
And thus, the dynamic shall go on unto the end of time:
Family-advocacy group:"This game is violent! It causes violence! The rest of the concerned citizens for patronizing censorship to defend families against the devil (CCPCDFAD) agree with me as well, and Dr. Phil said it might cause violence, so it must be true! We must ban all videogames that bible story reenactments!" Gamers online : "(*&#(@#*( IT'S A GAME! NOT REAL YOU STUPID @#&%!"
People need to quit saying they want a "realistic" game, but just remove all the real stuff that we don't exactly like. No, you want realism, here it is. deal with it.
You think the people asking for realistic games are the same ones who get upset at the gory bits? I don't. Jack Thompson for example has never asked for greater realism in videogames to my knowledge. I, on the other hand, enjoy the occasional game that is not for children, and dislike it when the game has been "cleaned up."
Maybe there are a few conflicted people who ask for completely realistic war games but somehow without the blood, killing, and hatred of the other side that comes along with it, maybe I'm optimistic when I suggest that there are very few of these hypocritical individuals. Still, I think what you're talking about is actually two seperate groups demanding mutually exclusive things.
and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens.... how... ?
Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA. If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers. Kind of insensitive to the victims. I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square, then spawn a tank and blow up cops). Moreover, -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there, wheras in this game, it's part of the plot.
Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre, fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.
Furthermore, when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok? I've got no problem with it, but this isn't exactly clear hypocrisy, plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA.
Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii, what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells?
Good question!
Most of the viruses strongly associated with cancer work by specifically inactivating proteins which safeguard against cancer, or they produce tons of a protein or several proteins that urges the cell towards mad replication. A virus infecting a cell often has a vested interest in seeing that one cell produce as much as possible to produce more virus. (If computers could reproduce themselves, undoubtedly some botnets would have their infected computers reproduce for much the same reason.) A major safeguard against cancer though is limiting cell division in most cells, so cells which are urged to divide without limits by a virus lack that major safeguard against cancer.
In the event that a mole rat got infected with a virus that caused cancer in that manner, it would depend on what method the virus took to make the cell divide out of control. There might well be mole rat viruses which specifically inhibit p16. If one were to take a carcinogenic virus and make it infect mole rat cells, it seems p16 might prevent the viruses from causing cancer: From the actual PNAS article abstract:
we show that a combination of activated Ras and SV40 LT fails to induce robust anchorage-independent growth in naked mole-rat cells, while it readily transforms mouse fibroblasts.
SV40 and I believe Ras (or maybe not) are viral proteins that cause cells to proliferate without limits ( ~ cancer), they don't have that effect in mole-rat cells.
Human cells are actually somewhat claustrophobic even without p16. Culture human fibroblasts (as the authors did) and the cells will happily reproduce, but only until they coat the media and are touching other cells on all sides. Normal human fibroblasts don't pile up on top of each other. They do when they have activated Ras or SV40 LT though. Mole rat cells don't. Also mole rat cells cultured tend to be more spread out than cultured human cells. The authors show some more important molecular details.
What would have been truly amazing would be if they had caused human cells to express p16 as mole rat cells do, and then demonstrated that human cells then are able to resist piling up in the presence of activated Ras or SV40 LT. I don't see it in the paper, so I'd suspect they tried doing that and it didn't work, and/or they had to do some more tinkering to get p16 to work in human cells and this will be even bigger news when they get it.
I am not a virologist or cancer biologist, so please, all you mean virologists and cancer biologists out there, go easy on me!
"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."
He's -sure- of his hypothesis. You think scientists don't become convinced of our own hypotheses before we have actual evidence? We do. I've been quite convinced of my own hypotheses and even occasionally ignored evidence that suggests I'm wrong, much to my later regret. I'm sure every scientist, and probably everyone else as well, has committed similar sins at some point.
Let's see...Hollywood...huge contributor to one of the major political parties...
The actors and actresses producers etc do contribute to the democratic party, I never got the impression that tearing down antitrust laws and keeping big content going was that much of an issue for them. Then again, I roll my eyes and go to a different webpage whenever I hear them on a political soapbox, so maybe it is.
I would assume that the -studios- on the other hand, the executives etc would contribute to both parties or maybe the republican party a lot more. Again, though, I could be wrong, I wouldn't want their political commentary either even if they did give it.
So your reasoning that democrats = big content wins seems flawed to me, though for a third time I'll admit I don't know much about hollywood's politics.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should our good men and (and a few women) have to die to 'help' these people?
I agree insofar as "these people" refers specifically to "heads of Ministry of the Interior's General Directorate for Combating Explosives" who are wasting a lot of money, refusing to admit they bought snake oil, and then handing them out to Iraq's own good men (and probably not many women) who are putting their lives on the line.
Because those people are assholes and any country deserves better than that.
I am interested in purchasing your bomb-repelling rock.
I also notice that no appliance I own in the USA uses insulation on the live pins of the plug to prevent accidental shocks when the plug is slightly out of the socket,
Uh... does that actually, you know, happen ever? I've been plugging and unplugging stuff for a while now, over 25 years, often while drunk, and the only times I've been shocked while plugging or unplugging things are when I realize what a rats nest I've made around the electrical sockets.
(We're talking mentally shocked, just for clarity sake, not like zzzap.)
What do you see there?
Someone too dumb to cite their source.
Handing over complete control of any further automotive function to a computer is goddamn terrifying.
Less fun too, and many times, more to go wrong. I'm looking at you, automatic transmissions.
Since they haven't gotten it to work in humans yet, we'll probably forget about it before...OMG, did you hear the latest on Jon and Kate?!?
but lets give MS the benefit of the doubt. After all, haven't they earned our trust? I'll take them at their word that stealing windows = malware. Fortunately, I don't have to steal windows anymore, a guy from nigeria says I'll be rich soon.
I'm sure ISPs such as Comcast will find another reason to suggest they need in interfere with network management. just give them a little bit of time to put their heads together with the guys at RIAA.
Really? I for one am certain that they will continue with the exact same rhetoric. It's a good scapegoat for them, and they don't have a problem with overlooking facts to avoid spending money.
Comcast: "No, we don't need to spend money to relieve congestion, the slowdown is all caused by bittorrent. We need to regulate it."
Us: "No it isn't, bittorrent isn't causing the problem, it's now self-regulating. The problem is on your end."
Comcast: "The slowdown is all caused by illegal bittorrent transfers! We need to regulate it!
Us: "No, see, here's a breakdown of traffic..."
Comcast" "THE SLOWDOWN IS ALL CAUSED BY ILLEGAL BITTORRENT TERRORISM! WE NEED TO REGULATE IT!"
Instead of an old-fashioned Boy Scout event of camping and outdoor activities, the attendees were subjected to unrelenting military and police propaganda."
I was in boy scouts years ago. Even before 9/11, the line between "old-fashioned boy scout event" and "state propaganda" was thin.
How do they define "reasonable suspicion"? I couldn't find that information in the article.
Judging by the numbers, I have a guess. If they arrest a terror suspect and search his house and find your contact information, you're on the list. Terrorists incidentally keep a LOT of contacts in things they call "Phone books," suprisingly well organized. Alphabetical and everything. Very neat handwriting as well. Business contacts are usually kept in books with yellowish pages, the significance of which is unknown. What's scary is that they have a number of contacts IN THE GOVERNMENT, on blue pages indicating they may be democrats.
It could just be that the Menfolk of Framingham fancy short fat women. Perhaps they're all short and fat as well.
I think we're also doing the usual extrapolating trends to ridiculous extremes. Lets look at the numbers, the ones in the summary even. 2 cm shorter. 1 kg heavier. By 2409.
2409!
This is 10 generations in the future, in my mind that's projecting 9 to 10 generations longer than is reasonable.
Moreover, 2 cm and 1 kg is not a huge difference! You are about a centimeter shorter at the end of the day than you are at the beginning. 1 kg extra weight isn't "fat" either.
This is news only because of the misleading headline and the opportunity for people to spout nonsense about who should be breeding and who shouldn't. If that trend were to continue for another thousand years, that might be an issue, why, women might be TEN pounds heavier and 3 INCHES shorter! How terrible would that be?!? I weep for my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandsons. Assuming they haven't mastered diet pills by then.
Don't feed shieldwolf when he's off his meds, it will only encourage him to continue not taking them.
However, talk of overpopulation is taboo.
Actually giving EVIDENCE that we're anywhere close to overpopulation worldwide (as opposed to we have an inefficient method of natural resource distribution) also seems taboo. The distinction is important to me. If we reduce the population of the earth by half somehow, I think we'd still be seeing most of the same problems we see now, like carbon emissions. Carbon release doesn't match population. For the topic at hand specifically, carbon emissions, overpopulation is not the cause, and reducing overpopulation would likely not be a solution.
Ernest Rutherford once said The only possible conclusion the social sciences can draw is: some do, some don't
Must be nice to get that level of certainty. My thesis (cell biology) so far is at "Some do."
But what if science doesn't pay the bills?
Fake some results and apply for more grants.
because science (i.e. by the 'academics') typically results in 80% wrong facts, and 20% absolute fact. Academics can't accept this, cause science is supposed to always produce 100% fact
Wrong. They can't accept it because in research, things almost never turn out to be "wrong facts" or "absolute fact." Much like everything else in life, it's a simpleton who sees only black and white. I'd say it's actually more like 20% wrong, 75% "not completely sure one way or the other", 5% "I'd bet good money on it."
There aren't absolute facts in science, only theories that have withstood so much testing that no one bothers challenging it any further.
Science is not a series of disconnected "Eureka!" moments; it's a steady accumulation of small but meaningful hypotheses that allow those superstars to formulate workable theories.
Exactly.
Additionally, a researcher is not either as good as einstein or valueless. If a researcher has absolutely zero value and makes absolutely no discoveries, he's not going to be employed for long. Most won't win nobel prizes, but all results from research have value. Not to mention that the quality of a researcher doesn't dictate the value of his or her research. Since a lot of research is blind, luck is a factor. Brilliant researchers sometimes have bad luck, investigating things that seem valuable at the time, and investigating them well, but turn out to be dead ends. Bad researchers sometimes get lucky, being in the right place at the right time, taking great suggestions from other researchers.
I feel like I fall somewhat into that last category at the start of my career. Several projects I designed and thought up are turning out to be poorly concieved, while a project that was suggested to me and I initially poo-pooed is starting to look really good.
So here is what I think Lee might ask today: why do people take pleasure in pretending (virtually) to kill innocent civilians? Or kill in general?
My grandmother, rest her soul, was convinced we were descendants of Robert E Lee (her maiden name was Lee, so really there's no need for lineage tracing or genetic evidence ;-) So as a probably-not representative of great great great uncle bob, I'd answer they like virtually killing innocent civilians for complicated reasons, normal human perverseness for one, lack of a moral objection since obvously it isn't real, dramatically reduced consequences from real life, curiosity, humor. And I'd agree, there is just something about taking life that appeals to people on a primitive level. How many of us killed ants with magnifying glasses as kids? Maybe it comes from a fascination with death, trying to come to terms with it.
Some is just the curiosity. Obviously most of us are never going to murder someone in cold blood. One of the only ways we can know how that feels is through simulation. Judging from murdering innocent people in Fallout 3, I'd never be able to stomach it, which I of course would have guessed. On rare occasions I have had nightmares in which I think I have killed someone. The actual murder is not part of the dream sequence, it's just as the scene starts I realize I murdered someone and feel horribly guilty about it. Those nightmares started a long time before Fallout 3 or any videogames for me, BTW. The only way I can intentionally "sample" that guilt is through videogames. Well, I guess there's another way, but again, not going to do that.
For christ's sake, it's a game! You aren't killing anyone
You're preaching to the choir here. The people objecting to videogame violence on the other hand have NEVER been pacified with that line of argument, just as those of us who have no problem with videogame violence have never been convinced by the faulty studies, anecdotes, and flawed reasoning the pro-censorship side employs.
And thus, the dynamic shall go on unto the end of time:
Family-advocacy group:"This game is violent! It causes violence! The rest of the concerned citizens for patronizing censorship to defend families against the devil (CCPCDFAD) agree with me as well, and Dr. Phil said it might cause violence, so it must be true! We must ban all videogames that bible story reenactments!"
Gamers online : "(*&#(@#*( IT'S A GAME! NOT REAL YOU STUPID @#&%!"
People need to quit saying they want a "realistic" game, but just remove all the real stuff that we don't exactly like. No, you want realism, here it is. deal with it.
You think the people asking for realistic games are the same ones who get upset at the gory bits? I don't. Jack Thompson for example has never asked for greater realism in videogames to my knowledge. I, on the other hand, enjoy the occasional game that is not for children, and dislike it when the game has been "cleaned up."
Maybe there are a few conflicted people who ask for completely realistic war games but somehow without the blood, killing, and hatred of the other side that comes along with it, maybe I'm optimistic when I suggest that there are very few of these hypocritical individuals. Still, I think what you're talking about is actually two seperate groups demanding mutually exclusive things.
and this is different from running rampant in grand theft auto killing innocent citizens .... how ... ?
Maybe because in GTA its evil evil criminals, because those who protest were too concerned about hidden sex games to complain about GTA. If you RTFA, you'll notice the scene is clearly remniscent of an actual event, and you play one of the killers. Kind of insensitive to the victims. I suppose some real life killings might resemble things players CAN do in GTA, but GTA is pretty exagerated (I've never heard about a carjacker hijacking a helicopter and using the blades to mow down everyone in times square, then spawn a tank and blow up cops). Moreover, -you- choose to do the killings of innocent people there, wheras in this game, it's part of the plot.
Some are going to see it as glorifying a real life massacre, fewer are going to see GTA as doing the same thing.
Furthermore, when exactly did everyone agree killing innocent civilians in GTA was completely a-ok? I've got no problem with it, but this isn't exactly clear hypocrisy, plenty of the people reacting to this also react to GTA.
... and I realize now you were asking about infection, not cancer, so uh...
Given that the popular literature is telling us that many cancers are caused by virii, what is the resistance to virus infection by these cells relative to the mouse cells?
Good question!
Most of the viruses strongly associated with cancer work by specifically inactivating proteins which safeguard against cancer, or they produce tons of a protein or several proteins that urges the cell towards mad replication. A virus infecting a cell often has a vested interest in seeing that one cell produce as much as possible to produce more virus. (If computers could reproduce themselves, undoubtedly some botnets would have their infected computers reproduce for much the same reason.) A major safeguard against cancer though is limiting cell division in most cells, so cells which are urged to divide without limits by a virus lack that major safeguard against cancer.
In the event that a mole rat got infected with a virus that caused cancer in that manner, it would depend on what method the virus took to make the cell divide out of control. There might well be mole rat viruses which specifically inhibit p16. If one were to take a carcinogenic virus and make it infect mole rat cells, it seems p16 might prevent the viruses from causing cancer: From the actual PNAS article abstract:
we show that a combination of activated Ras and SV40 LT fails to induce robust anchorage-independent growth in naked mole-rat cells, while it readily transforms mouse fibroblasts.
SV40 and I believe Ras (or maybe not) are viral proteins that cause cells to proliferate without limits ( ~ cancer), they don't have that effect in mole-rat cells.
Human cells are actually somewhat claustrophobic even without p16. Culture human fibroblasts (as the authors did) and the cells will happily reproduce, but only until they coat the media and are touching other cells on all sides. Normal human fibroblasts don't pile up on top of each other. They do when they have activated Ras or SV40 LT though. Mole rat cells don't. Also mole rat cells cultured tend to be more spread out than cultured human cells. The authors show some more important molecular details.
What would have been truly amazing would be if they had caused human cells to express p16 as mole rat cells do, and then demonstrated that human cells then are able to resist piling up in the presence of activated Ras or SV40 LT. I don't see it in the paper, so I'd suspect they tried doing that and it didn't work, and/or they had to do some more tinkering to get p16 to work in human cells and this will be even bigger news when they get it.
I am not a virologist or cancer biologist, so please, all you mean virologists and cancer biologists out there, go easy on me!
"I'm sure that they had sex"
What evidence? The article says:
"We will be able to answer quite rigorously with the new [Neanderthal genome] sequence."
He's -sure- of his hypothesis. You think scientists don't become convinced of our own hypotheses before we have actual evidence? We do. I've been quite convinced of my own hypotheses and even occasionally ignored evidence that suggests I'm wrong, much to my later regret. I'm sure every scientist, and probably everyone else as well, has committed similar sins at some point.
Let's see...Hollywood...huge contributor to one of the major political parties...
The actors and actresses producers etc do contribute to the democratic party, I never got the impression that tearing down antitrust laws and keeping big content going was that much of an issue for them. Then again, I roll my eyes and go to a different webpage whenever I hear them on a political soapbox, so maybe it is.
I would assume that the -studios- on the other hand, the executives etc would contribute to both parties or maybe the republican party a lot more. Again, though, I could be wrong, I wouldn't want their political commentary either even if they did give it.
So your reasoning that democrats = big content wins seems flawed to me, though for a third time I'll admit I don't know much about hollywood's politics.