I don't think raising the price of electricity actually correlates necessarily with quality of life, there are a few logical leaps there that we're missing. That's foolish. The best way to advance efficiency at least is to make it hurt economically not to cut the fat.
And that's if you take a simpleton approach and do it uniformly as opposed to more nuanced ways, like increased rates for households or businesses which use more than a certain amount for their respective allotment.
Maybe environmentalists wouldn't seem so wacko to you if you'd stop assuming they want to achieve their goals through the dumbest, most painful methods possible?
Not to ruin the joke, but there are two important points which I worry might get trampled 1. embryonic stem cells don't come from "aborted fetuses," they come from in vitro fertilization. I realize a lot of people don't think there's any difference, but these aren't from unwanted pregnancies being terminated at abortion clinics, these are embryos that were always headed for the biomedical waste pile. By the time you know you're pregnant, your embryo doesn't appear to contain any cells which are ESC. 2. ESC aren't alternatives to this. Embryonic stem cells come from another individual, unless that embryo is a clone of you, your body would probably reject tissues derived from ESC as it would from any other adult. Being able to make pluripotent stem cells more efficiently from YOUR OWN fat on the other hand wouldn't have that problem. If you needed a new heart in the future, you might undergo microliposuction one week, wait a week or month while they turned that tissue into induced pluripotent stem cells and made those cells into a new heart, then you'd undergo surgery to remove your original heart and put in the heart made from transformed fat cells. Or maybe they'd just enrich your original heart with fat stem cells turned into cardiomyocytes. Who knows. But you can't make a heart from ESC and put it into yourself without being on immunosupressant drugs for the rest of your life.
So wait, the japanese had the technology to do liposuction and generate induced pluripotent stem cells, and couldn't find anything other than boobs?
Seriously though: this is not the same thing. At all. That was taking fat out and putting fat back in. This is taking fat out and making a liver to put in... in theory. To use a car metaphor, we're talking about the ability to take any spare part from your car and turn it into a new engine. You're saying that's old technology because we have been able to use a spare tire to replace a flat tire.
It is Japan, the cardboard box houses are actually much more advanced than we're used to. That solar panel would be useful for charging your cyber parts.
Sounds like an argument for getting the Government out of the business of funding research altogether.
Basic research, research that is essential to getting to the next technological goal but often won't directly lead to something profitable and very often leads absolutely nowhere, isn't something most companies want anything to do with. They're more than happy to spend money if, for example, a researcher were to approach them saying "I have this drug that identifies and kills cancer stem cells in culture, but it will need about a billion in investment before it can be used for that." But if a researcher comes to them and says "I want to determine if cancer stem cells do undermine current approaches to treating cancer" they're less likely to get funded.
Basic research is also usually too complicated or technical to elicit much charity money. Big things like "find a cure for cancer" will get some people to break out their wallets. "Find out if cancer stem cells exist in all types of cancer" will confuse people and not get a lot of money. And of course, the government hands out tax revenue much more freely than individuals hand out charity.
Non-government funding is good for those rare situations when you want something from research and you know exactly how to get there, but most of the things we want from research, the path isn't well lit, and we need government investment. Besides, what government funded research does find, when it finds something, has high value to the public at large.
When has the Federal Government ever given away so much as a penny without politics entering the equation?
More often than private industry has given so much as a penny without a quick profit being inevitable.
Oh I'm sorry, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say.
It seems to me, being relatively uninformed about nuclear power, that there are significant differences between computers, a technology which has gotten cheaper, and nuclear power, which you say will get cheaper. How exactly WILL a free market ever do anything on power when we're still talking about huge power plants and inevitable government bureaucracy basically granting a monopoly? Are we going to see two competing nuclear power plants per town? Why aren't we seeing that with coal?
These aren't hypothetical questions, I honestly don't know. What I do know is that the answers aren't obvious, so you have no leg to stand on acting as if his concerns are stupid. You pro-nukers always seem so angry whenever anyone questions nuclear power, it makes me wonder why you're so sure that nuclear power is beyond question. What's your real motivation? Are you trying to make nuclear power look less interesting? Because I have very little motivation to become educated on the pros of nuclear power when you guys act like it should be obvious already and anyone who isn't wearing a "I love nuclear power" button is an idiot.
I think you're giving me too much credit: I didn't bring up that point, although it is a reasonably good sounding one. I'd need to see some evidence that this -won't- lower costs before I'd be convinced, but it sounds entirely plausible.
Really that sounds like a good investment. You could use my bank account for a small fee. I don't have my account number handy, just look it up in the anonymized data~!
That's a valid point. I've never actually had that conversation though, I avoid the phrase "stem cell" anyway. Also you're right, that wouldn't actually be average. And of course, that was a hyperbole.
Of course the public won't understand something as complicated as nuclear reactors. Science is over their heads.
Me: "I work on stem cells in adult mice" "Average" citizen: "Stem cells? You're going to hell, euthanizing senior citizens is wrong!" Me: "Wow... I don't... uh, I'm going to..."
I did think that was an overstatement that undermined the main point. None of my prescriptions would be embarassing to anyone but a holistic medicine believer, I've told some tasteless jokes online. If someone were to send that information to my family along with what porn I looked at, that would be awkward at most. And that's assuming it's credible, which it wouldn't be.
How exactly would this blackmail work? Bob, the evil co-worker threatens to tell your wife and boss you have had a sex change, a running prescription to anti-psychotic medication, were arrested for something that they don't know about and you weren't legally obligated to inform them of, and look at gay porn aproximately 30% of your waking hours. For this hypothetical situation, assume that information is true. Do you do what he wants? If you don't and he does tell your wife and boss, do they actually believe him?
I think privacy is good for privacy's sake, overstatements such as this undermine the point.
Yes you are. I always put put 90210. Phone number 867-5309. If anyone tries to find me, they're at least going to have that song stuck in their head and recall with disgust the shows they watched in the early 90's. Hopefully that will demoralize them enough to give up.
Citation needed. Environmental factors, such as a radioactive codpiece or more realistically teratogenic pollutants will increase that rate first of all. Second, even without environmental factors, there will be individual differences within a species. There are also regions of chromesomes more or less prone to mutations. Different mammals have different proofreading mechanisms as well, there is no way that constant holds for all mammals even theoretically.
Both links, including the story on the Sanger institute's own page, suggest that this team studied only one set of relatives. I realize this is a lot of work and there aren't many people who would make good test subjects, that you knew were distant relatives. But I can't get over the idea of testing exactly one pair and making sound conclusions from it. Seems like they're assuming those 12 mutations were gradually accrued. Maybe the actual rate of mutation is much lower, except for Grandpa Li who wore a uranium codpiece every day and 10 of the mutations occoured then.
My point is determining the number of mutations between two people is impressive biology, but saying that's a universal constant is overstating it.
It's just like every other feature that is included for free: you don't think you'll ever use it, but once or twice when you actually do you realize it was totally worth the zero dollars you paid for it. I have it because for some reason it was free when they first offered it. I mainly use it for three things
1. I am playing a game on the 360, need to check gamefaqs for a hint or something, and the computer is being used or I don't feel like bringing the laptop in 2. -ahem- websites that I don't want to view on my computer, for a variety of reasons 3. The wii happens to be on and I don't want to start a game but am bored
The coat proteins do more than just carry the DNA to your cells, they allow the virus to actually get inside the cell. That's a pretty major part of a virus, the DNA itself is not going to get inside a cell to produce an infection. There are also more proteins inside many viruses that are essential HIV has several for example.Influenza does too. So it requires more than just the data to kill you.
Viroids are infectious particles that are just nucleotides, just the data. All the viroids that we know of though infect plants, not humans. That wiki page mentions Hepatitis D as viroid like, but it hitches a ride on another hepatitis, without the viral proteins of that virus it can't infect.
Slashdot Mirror
This is slashdot, which runs on pure elitism. You say there are real reasons to use facebook?
HERETIC! BURN HIM!
I don't think raising the price of electricity actually correlates necessarily with quality of life, there are a few logical leaps there that we're missing. That's foolish. The best way to advance efficiency at least is to make it hurt economically not to cut the fat.
And that's if you take a simpleton approach and do it uniformly as opposed to more nuanced ways, like increased rates for households or businesses which use more than a certain amount for their respective allotment.
Maybe environmentalists wouldn't seem so wacko to you if you'd stop assuming they want to achieve their goals through the dumbest, most painful methods possible?
Not to ruin the joke, but there are two important points which I worry might get trampled
1. embryonic stem cells don't come from "aborted fetuses," they come from in vitro fertilization. I realize a lot of people don't think there's any difference, but these aren't from unwanted pregnancies being terminated at abortion clinics, these are embryos that were always headed for the biomedical waste pile. By the time you know you're pregnant, your embryo doesn't appear to contain any cells which are ESC.
2. ESC aren't alternatives to this. Embryonic stem cells come from another individual, unless that embryo is a clone of you, your body would probably reject tissues derived from ESC as it would from any other adult. Being able to make pluripotent stem cells more efficiently from YOUR OWN fat on the other hand wouldn't have that problem. If you needed a new heart in the future, you might undergo microliposuction one week, wait a week or month while they turned that tissue into induced pluripotent stem cells and made those cells into a new heart, then you'd undergo surgery to remove your original heart and put in the heart made from transformed fat cells. Or maybe they'd just enrich your original heart with fat stem cells turned into cardiomyocytes. Who knows. But you can't make a heart from ESC and put it into yourself without being on immunosupressant drugs for the rest of your life.
So wait, the japanese had the technology to do liposuction and generate induced pluripotent stem cells, and couldn't find anything other than boobs?
Seriously though: this is not the same thing. At all. That was taking fat out and putting fat back in. This is taking fat out and making a liver to put in... in theory. To use a car metaphor, we're talking about the ability to take any spare part from your car and turn it into a new engine. You're saying that's old technology because we have been able to use a spare tire to replace a flat tire.
or live in a cardboard box and be a cyborg...?
It is Japan, the cardboard box houses are actually much more advanced than we're used to. That solar panel would be useful for charging your cyber parts.
Sounds like an argument for getting the Government out of the business of funding research altogether.
Basic research, research that is essential to getting to the next technological goal but often won't directly lead to something profitable and very often leads absolutely nowhere, isn't something most companies want anything to do with. They're more than happy to spend money if, for example, a researcher were to approach them saying "I have this drug that identifies and kills cancer stem cells in culture, but it will need about a billion in investment before it can be used for that." But if a researcher comes to them and says "I want to determine if cancer stem cells do undermine current approaches to treating cancer" they're less likely to get funded.
Basic research is also usually too complicated or technical to elicit much charity money. Big things like "find a cure for cancer" will get some people to break out their wallets. "Find out if cancer stem cells exist in all types of cancer" will confuse people and not get a lot of money. And of course, the government hands out tax revenue much more freely than individuals hand out charity.
Non-government funding is good for those rare situations when you want something from research and you know exactly how to get there, but most of the things we want from research, the path isn't well lit, and we need government investment. Besides, what government funded research does find, when it finds something, has high value to the public at large.
When has the Federal Government ever given away so much as a penny without politics entering the equation?
More often than private industry has given so much as a penny without a quick profit being inevitable.
Oh I'm sorry, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say.
It seems to me, being relatively uninformed about nuclear power, that there are significant differences between computers, a technology which has gotten cheaper, and nuclear power, which you say will get cheaper. How exactly WILL a free market ever do anything on power when we're still talking about huge power plants and inevitable government bureaucracy basically granting a monopoly? Are we going to see two competing nuclear power plants per town? Why aren't we seeing that with coal?
These aren't hypothetical questions, I honestly don't know. What I do know is that the answers aren't obvious, so you have no leg to stand on acting as if his concerns are stupid. You pro-nukers always seem so angry whenever anyone questions nuclear power, it makes me wonder why you're so sure that nuclear power is beyond question. What's your real motivation? Are you trying to make nuclear power look less interesting? Because I have very little motivation to become educated on the pros of nuclear power when you guys act like it should be obvious already and anyone who isn't wearing a "I love nuclear power" button is an idiot.
I'm going to claim this as proof of my original point!
I'm sorry, is it no longer politically correct to only mention an example of conservative stupidity without mentioning one of liberal stupidity?
I think you're giving me too much credit: I didn't bring up that point, although it is a reasonably good sounding one. I'd need to see some evidence that this -won't- lower costs before I'd be convinced, but it sounds entirely plausible.
Really that sounds like a good investment. You could use my bank account for a small fee. I don't have my account number handy, just look it up in the anonymized data~!
That's a valid point. I've never actually had that conversation though, I avoid the phrase "stem cell" anyway. Also you're right, that wouldn't actually be average. And of course, that was a hyperbole.
Of course the public won't understand something as complicated as nuclear reactors. Science is over their heads.
Me: "I work on stem cells in adult mice"
"Average" citizen: "Stem cells? You're going to hell, euthanizing senior citizens is wrong!"
Me: "Wow... I don't... uh, I'm going to..."
I did think that was an overstatement that undermined the main point. None of my prescriptions would be embarassing to anyone but a holistic medicine believer, I've told some tasteless jokes online. If someone were to send that information to my family along with what porn I looked at, that would be awkward at most. And that's assuming it's credible, which it wouldn't be.
How exactly would this blackmail work? Bob, the evil co-worker threatens to tell your wife and boss you have had a sex change, a running prescription to anti-psychotic medication, were arrested for something that they don't know about and you weren't legally obligated to inform them of, and look at gay porn aproximately 30% of your waking hours. For this hypothetical situation, assume that information is true. Do you do what he wants? If you don't and he does tell your wife and boss, do they actually believe him?
I think privacy is good for privacy's sake, overstatements such as this undermine the point.
Yes you are. I always put put 90210. Phone number 867-5309. If anyone tries to find me, they're at least going to have that song stuck in their head and recall with disgust the shows they watched in the early 90's. Hopefully that will demoralize them enough to give up.
Citation needed. Environmental factors, such as a radioactive codpiece or more realistically teratogenic pollutants will increase that rate first of all. Second, even without environmental factors, there will be individual differences within a species. There are also regions of chromesomes more or less prone to mutations. Different mammals have different proofreading mechanisms as well, there is no way that constant holds for all mammals even theoretically.
I would have gotten a better pun as the first post, but my computer froze.
You took all the puns? Man, that's just ice cold.
Both links, including the story on the Sanger institute's own page, suggest that this team studied only one set of relatives. I realize this is a lot of work and there aren't many people who would make good test subjects, that you knew were distant relatives. But I can't get over the idea of testing exactly one pair and making sound conclusions from it. Seems like they're assuming those 12 mutations were gradually accrued. Maybe the actual rate of mutation is much lower, except for Grandpa Li who wore a uranium codpiece every day and 10 of the mutations occoured then.
My point is determining the number of mutations between two people is impressive biology, but saying that's a universal constant is overstating it.
What is top posting? What are quote tags? Why so angry?
"2) Do not, ever--I fucking repeat--EVER top post."
Because my "blackraven nightmaremaker 1000" (TM) works.
There are pretty much no new games for it.
That has been true of the wii for most of it's life, yet oddly...
I think it has peaked and is on the way down.
...it has a long way it would need to fall before it reaches the other two
It's just like every other feature that is included for free: you don't think you'll ever use it, but once or twice when you actually do you realize it was totally worth the zero dollars you paid for it. I have it because for some reason it was free when they first offered it. I mainly use it for three things
1. I am playing a game on the 360, need to check gamefaqs for a hint or something, and the computer is being used or I don't feel like bringing the laptop in
2. -ahem- websites that I don't want to view on my computer, for a variety of reasons
3. The wii happens to be on and I don't want to start a game but am bored
The coat proteins do more than just carry the DNA to your cells, they allow the virus to actually get inside the cell. That's a pretty major part of a virus, the DNA itself is not going to get inside a cell to produce an infection. There are also more proteins inside many viruses that are essential HIV has several for example. Influenza does too. So it requires more than just the data to kill you.
Viroids are infectious particles that are just nucleotides, just the data. All the viroids that we know of though infect plants, not humans. That wiki page mentions Hepatitis D as viroid like, but it hitches a ride on another hepatitis, without the viral proteins of that virus it can't infect.
So you're saying that it would take just 11 posts on Twitter to kill someone?
BSE destroys your brain. Do most twitterers' first 11 posts show signs of brain activity?