Me too. Marathon overall was much darker in tone than Halo. There were moments with the flood that felt like Marathon, but nothing as sinister as the humans that had been turned into walking bombs. Durandal had more character with those text terminals than anyone in Halo besides maybe the Oracle.
I think the chances of this happening are reasonably high, since Bungie isn't going to be doing Halo anymore. I'd be happy if they could make a game that played like and looked similar to Halo, but had the more disturbing undertones and feel that Marathon did. Unfortunately, I think Bungie's next game will be aimed at a wider audience (read: not as dark) and will be derided as Halo 4.
It's a vaccine, so any cells presenting modified MUC1 will hopefully be killed before they proliferate very often and can learn to make yet another form of muc1. That said, the article does point out not all colon cancer cells express the mutant form, so it probably won't completely prevent colon cancer, but if it works maybe it could prevent most of them from occurring.
Maybe the reason they're talking about vaccine instead of treatment is because they do find that if they target the mutant form, there is enough of a population that some cells don't express it and the cancer comes back quickly. That time might be enough though. I've heard that one treatment for gliomas, a very fast cancer, is to inject radioactively-tagged antibodies to cancer-specific proteins, the idea being that the antibodies stick to the cancer cells and kill some of them. I've heard that while it won't kill all the cancerous cells, it can kill enough of them to extend your life from a matter of weeks to a matter of months. Might not sound like much, but the patients and their families often appreciate it I'm sure.
Kind of interesting how many people have talked about hating living near republicans, not liking republicans, etc...don't think I've ever heard someone say they hate to live next to democrats. ~shrug~ so much for tolerance:-P
Seems like there are more people on slashdot, and the internet as a whole who are to the left of the political spectrum. The republicans definitely do complain about living next to democrats, they just do it at their rodeos, churches, and klan meetings.
Okay okay okay, that last one wasn't fair, and the others may have been at least questionable. My point though is that democrats are overrepresented online, so that's at least some of it right there. I've heard plenty of republicans complain about living amongst democrats, just rarely online.
As a molecular biologist in training who went to high school in Kansas during the "just a theory" phase I have to say a few things
1. While a very boring place and more socially conservative, Kansas isn't too bad. There are a few nuts, there are a few nuts in every state of varying varieties. Most kansans don't believe in intelligent design. They don't. I have a negative opinion of kansas because they're more red and there's not much there, but it's still a bit offensive to me to hear them mischaracterized like that. The creationists snuck onto the schoolboard when no one was looking. Normal people didn't bother voting in local elections, as they do in every state, while the creationists had really high turnout for their guys, next election they were gone. They're a minority in kansas. Your kids would not be corrupted... at least not by the creationists.
2/ There's plenty of good research going on at KU med center, and Stowers Institute (technically not on the kansas side of KC, but close) and others. There's also a lot of agricultural research going on there for obvious reasons.
Being pretty ignorant when it comes to things like this, I have to ask what is probably an ignorant question: it was intentional that they made it work only with vista or XP? I thought it was just that they were too lazy to add support for anything else.
Pretty sad when an academic doesn't learn the relevant details of copyright as pertains to their work.
Some of us are so busy trying to teach relevant classes, get the results to publish, write the papers, get them approved, get our work funded, pass tests, give lab meeting, and/or manage our non-academic lives that we don't give much thought to the subject.
And then there are those few of us who waste so much time on/. and other websites that it really invalidates the points we are trying to make on those websites...
I was always under the impression that you could, say cite the other work in your work and make comparison's and contrasts to the other work.
It's odd that the summary and article claim that without actually citing any examples. The article just says "I've heard of..." Makes me wonder if it's not an overstatement, a misstatement, a severe miscommunication, or an absurdly bad publication that told a researcher an outright lie which he believed. Citing your own work, saying "I found this and published it here" can't possibly be barred by any publication. For one thing, citing an article increases the impact factor of the article, it's worth. A journal that is trying to decrease it's impact factor by saying you can't cite your own work is a journal that is shooting itself in the foot about three different ways.
I think what might be more likely is that the author of the article heard about a researcher who wanted to republish a figure he had published in another journal, and that journal wouldn't let him. And that's something that SHOULD be barred, you can't republish the same data twice, nor do you need to. BOTH journals would have problems with that, as would other researchers in the field. It's basically getting credit twice.
One exception to that would be if a researcher was publishing a review type article and wanted to include a figure or diagram from the original paper, making it clear though that it was not a new result but was old data included in a summary of the literature on a subject. That again is a journal shooting itself in the foot and would be ridiculous if it happened. I've often seen figures from other publications in review articles, journals that published the original data seem willing to work out an agreement with whoever is publishing the review. I've never published one, so I'm guessing, it again goes back to the impact factor. If you run a journal and an important result was published in it, you want people to know it was both an important result and was published in your journal.
This really seems like something that can't occour often to me. I could easily be wrong for other non-biological fields that I have no experience in though.
If you support stem cell research (as I do) have the balls to call it what it is...
Induction of fibroblasts to become pluripotent (IPSC) can actually be described as controversial, at least in the academic sense, not so much ethically controversial as ESC use is. The field is extremely new, it was only a few years ago that IPSC were discovered/invented. New ways of making IPSC are coming out at a pace that is faster than biological research usually moves, because the rewards are so great and so many people are working on it.
It's inevitable that there are going to be some scientists who come to opposite conclusions from published articles on the subject. One lab found that four genes transfected into fibroblasts will cause them to become pluripotent, others find a different four genes. How many of the results have been duplicated by other labs? Not all of them, since again, they're relatively recent discoveries. In April of this year, researchers found that you can just incubate cells in modified proteins to make them pluripotent. I'm sure there are quite a few experts who are skeptical about that, and probably some who aren't convinced the whole field is anything more than a distraction.
It's not the same type of controversy as surrounds ESC, fortunately, but the techniques used to make IPSC can still be described as controversial as there's still reasonable skepticism about some of them, and there will be for a few more years, though I think everyone expects them to be validated.
Anway, stem cells are different than the reprogrammed cells beyond that. True stem cells are natural cells which have normal roles in cellular proliferation. Induced pluripotent stem cells, while sharing many of the characteristics of true stem cells, are not exactly "Stem cells" because they're completely artificial.
By the way, another complication of stem cells and IPSC being so new is that the terminology itself hasn't been set in stone. A few years ago a defining characteristic of stem cells was said to be that they were slow cycling, wheras since then the field has seemed to disfavor that as a hallmark. For all I know, it may have swung back the other way. There are undoubtedly some people who lump IPSC in with stem cell research, others don't. As a developmental biologist, I tend to think the artificial versus natural is a pretty important distinction.
The only time in the past decade I've had to write in cursive was on the GRE. For some reason they had us copy a honor statement in cursive before we took the test. I wasted about 10 minutes on that stupid thing, my head trying to control my hand, which kept slipping back into how I normally write (I stopped using even lowercase letters back in 8th grade, trying to copy my Dad's blueprint-style handwriting).
Eventually I gave up and just wrote as I normally do but just didn't move the pen off the page between letters. Of course no one ever looked at it and I never heard anything about it.
I wonder if it's not some devious psychological trick to throw the test taker off his game. My fellow grad school students also had to do the same thing, they were all were confused and annoyed by it and eventually gave up like I did. Preparation for the frustration and pointlessness of grad school life maybe.
They do have a point. Doing something like that without permission these days can land you in deep crap.
Uh... I don't think any of the quotes from NeoGAF actually MADE that point.
"shuri" pointed out that it wasn't very professional. (I'd argue that an amateur game journalist is, by definition, not professional.)
"Shockingalberto" called it stupid several times. A real credit to NeoGAF forums right there.
Finally "Tiktaalik" asked a question which seems pretty obvious: he liked the game, had a lot of free time (college student and "amateur game journalist"), and nintendo wouldn't have hired him.
So... nothing I see about how it's dangerous. NeoGAF just seems angry that they weren't included. Maybe it's just typical angry online gamer talk, I don't know.
The bikini test could either be that the lawyers involved have to wear bikinis, it could also involve deporting the lawyers to the bikini atoll and then resuming nuclear tests there.
Actually, that's too much work, I'm just going to look at pictures of women in bikinis now.
Picture yourself as the judge. There are two people in front of you, neither of whom you have met. One of them says, "He infringed my patent by operating a business that manufactured millions of units of products utilizing the claimed technique." The other one only says, "Fuck you, slim[e]!" Right off the bat, you are going to be biased against the guy who can't be bothered to explain why he didn't infringe the patent. He just looks like a puerile, sophomoric idiot.
I think everyone can agree that his defense should consist of more than profanity. Responding to this abuse of patent law with a less than professional letter doesn't limit his legal defense to just that though. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The summary, most commenters, and largely the article itself seem to be missing the big point here
The researchers found the body glow rose and fell over the day, with its lowest point at 10 a.m. and its peak at 4 p.m., dropping gradually after that. These findings suggest there is light emission linked to our body clocks, most likely due to how our metabolic rhythms fluctuate over the course of the day...
Since this faint light is linked with the body's metabolism, this finding suggests cameras that can spot the weak emissions could help spot medical conditions
So yes, people glow, and yes, this was known previously. The point of the research is that this can be used, for studying circadian rythms and maybe identifying problems with it and metabolism. The scientist quoted is billed as a "circadian rhythm biologist," you've got to think he's probably not studying this to find out if people glow or not.
The information in the summary is thirdhand at best: whoever makes the summary makes it from an article, which in this case wasn't primary literature from the actual scientists but was AOL news or whoever "imaginova corp" is interviewing several japanese scientists about their work. AOL news seems to have misunderstood the research that they were writing about.
The entire lab has a GILF fetish. It's a requirement to join the lab that you like em wrinkly and flabby. It's not even a nutrition lab, they're a physics lab. They know what they're doing.
First, this is what you get when the lawyers hold sway over the techies and visionaries.
Sounds to me more like a legal department that is granted too much independence. "Defend our property, I'm assuming because we pay you so much that you know what's reasonable and what should warrant a lawsuit."
I often find that I'm naive when I assume things about companies though.
Second, why o why don't modern companies just stfu with their legal hollering and get on with making products? If they make good products customers will come flocking and that in and of itself secures brand loyalty.
It's more than just lawsuits. DRM is of course another example of companies foolishly wasting more effort trying to maximize profit than they do making things that are actually profitable.
If you're spend X dollars developing a product and then spend 2X dollars making sure you get all the money you can out of selling it, you need to be sure you couldn't have made even more money in the long term by spending that 2X$ on another product. Do companies actually do that ever? I don't work at any of them, but it doesn't seem like they do.
Where else would you find such ingenuity (and such nerdiness)?
Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea according to boston.com.
I remember a partial eclipse here in the states, apparently people were staring at the sun through CDs, which were ineffective. There were warnings on the news to that effect.
The guy taking the picture through exposed X ray films... without knowing anything about those specific films, I'd guess that they wouldn't be doing anything to block UV rays. Does anyone know if they actually do?
these pics look much bigger nicer over at boston.com's The Big Picture, where they were posted yesterday and no doubt scooped and scaled for your link.
To TFAs credit, they didn't just steal the images and scale them: they also did some editing. Specifically they left out the picture of people, including several gross old men, getting into the ganges.
Old man nipples and cherrios don't make for a good morning for me.
You'll be eating those words when China unveils their brand new designed-in-secret anti-ICBM system...
What if they just decide to occupy, say, Alaska?
Wait, so China develops ICBMs, in addition to already having us by the economic short hairs and invades Alaska... and jet fighters of any type would help us there?
In that scenario I personally would be eating Rad-X by the bottle rather than my words, because we've entered Fallout.
Slashdot Mirror
And singing canaries, we could test if the effect specific to mammals or if birds have the same reaction.
Why? Are rats less deserving of our sympathies than "intelligent" humans?
Yes.
Wouldn't it be /more/ humane to test on those creatures that can give informed consent?
No.
Me too. Marathon overall was much darker in tone than Halo. There were moments with the flood that felt like Marathon, but nothing as sinister as the humans that had been turned into walking bombs. Durandal had more character with those text terminals than anyone in Halo besides maybe the Oracle.
I think the chances of this happening are reasonably high, since Bungie isn't going to be doing Halo anymore. I'd be happy if they could make a game that played like and looked similar to Halo, but had the more disturbing undertones and feel that Marathon did. Unfortunately, I think Bungie's next game will be aimed at a wider audience (read: not as dark) and will be derided as Halo 4.
It's a vaccine, so any cells presenting modified MUC1 will hopefully be killed before they proliferate very often and can learn to make yet another form of muc1. That said, the article does point out not all colon cancer cells express the mutant form, so it probably won't completely prevent colon cancer, but if it works maybe it could prevent most of them from occurring.
Maybe the reason they're talking about vaccine instead of treatment is because they do find that if they target the mutant form, there is enough of a population that some cells don't express it and the cancer comes back quickly. That time might be enough though. I've heard that one treatment for gliomas, a very fast cancer, is to inject radioactively-tagged antibodies to cancer-specific proteins, the idea being that the antibodies stick to the cancer cells and kill some of them. I've heard that while it won't kill all the cancerous cells, it can kill enough of them to extend your life from a matter of weeks to a matter of months. Might not sound like much, but the patients and their families often appreciate it I'm sure.
That's pretty trivial, and if I were a Canadian researcher I might feel like you were patronizing me.
Kind of interesting how many people have talked about hating living near republicans, not liking republicans, etc...don't think I've ever heard someone say they hate to live next to democrats. ~shrug~ so much for tolerance :-P
Seems like there are more people on slashdot, and the internet as a whole who are to the left of the political spectrum. The republicans definitely do complain about living next to democrats, they just do it at their rodeos, churches, and klan meetings.
Okay okay okay, that last one wasn't fair, and the others may have been at least questionable. My point though is that democrats are overrepresented online, so that's at least some of it right there. I've heard plenty of republicans complain about living amongst democrats, just rarely online.
That or we're just better neighbors.
As a molecular biologist in training who went to high school in Kansas during the "just a theory" phase I have to say a few things
1. While a very boring place and more socially conservative, Kansas isn't too bad. There are a few nuts, there are a few nuts in every state of varying varieties. Most kansans don't believe in intelligent design. They don't. I have a negative opinion of kansas because they're more red and there's not much there, but it's still a bit offensive to me to hear them mischaracterized like that. The creationists snuck onto the schoolboard when no one was looking. Normal people didn't bother voting in local elections, as they do in every state, while the creationists had really high turnout for their guys, next election they were gone. They're a minority in kansas. Your kids would not be corrupted... at least not by the creationists.
2/ There's plenty of good research going on at KU med center, and Stowers Institute (technically not on the kansas side of KC, but close) and others. There's also a lot of agricultural research going on there for obvious reasons.
3. It is just a theory.
Kidding, just kidding.
Being pretty ignorant when it comes to things like this, I have to ask what is probably an ignorant question: it was intentional that they made it work only with vista or XP? I thought it was just that they were too lazy to add support for anything else.
... begging for money that comes up with these "revolutionary" breakthroughs. Did we not learn anything from the tech boom/bust?
Are you saying we were supposed to learn that revolutionary breakthroughs are ALWAYS snake-oil?
Pretty sad when an academic doesn't learn the relevant details of copyright as pertains to their work.
Some of us are so busy trying to teach relevant classes, get the results to publish, write the papers, get them approved, get our work funded, pass tests, give lab meeting, and/or manage our non-academic lives that we don't give much thought to the subject.
And then there are those few of us who waste so much time on /. and other websites that it really invalidates the points we are trying to make on those websites...
I was always under the impression that you could, say cite the other work in your work and make comparison's and contrasts to the other work.
It's odd that the summary and article claim that without actually citing any examples. The article just says "I've heard of..." Makes me wonder if it's not an overstatement, a misstatement, a severe miscommunication, or an absurdly bad publication that told a researcher an outright lie which he believed. Citing your own work, saying "I found this and published it here" can't possibly be barred by any publication. For one thing, citing an article increases the impact factor of the article, it's worth. A journal that is trying to decrease it's impact factor by saying you can't cite your own work is a journal that is shooting itself in the foot about three different ways.
I think what might be more likely is that the author of the article heard about a researcher who wanted to republish a figure he had published in another journal, and that journal wouldn't let him. And that's something that SHOULD be barred, you can't republish the same data twice, nor do you need to. BOTH journals would have problems with that, as would other researchers in the field. It's basically getting credit twice.
One exception to that would be if a researcher was publishing a review type article and wanted to include a figure or diagram from the original paper, making it clear though that it was not a new result but was old data included in a summary of the literature on a subject. That again is a journal shooting itself in the foot and would be ridiculous if it happened. I've often seen figures from other publications in review articles, journals that published the original data seem willing to work out an agreement with whoever is publishing the review. I've never published one, so I'm guessing, it again goes back to the impact factor. If you run a journal and an important result was published in it, you want people to know it was both an important result and was published in your journal.
This really seems like something that can't occour often to me. I could easily be wrong for other non-biological fields that I have no experience in though.
If you support stem cell research (as I do) have the balls to call it what it is...
Induction of fibroblasts to become pluripotent (IPSC) can actually be described as controversial, at least in the academic sense, not so much ethically controversial as ESC use is. The field is extremely new, it was only a few years ago that IPSC were discovered/invented. New ways of making IPSC are coming out at a pace that is faster than biological research usually moves, because the rewards are so great and so many people are working on it.
It's inevitable that there are going to be some scientists who come to opposite conclusions from published articles on the subject. One lab found that four genes transfected into fibroblasts will cause them to become pluripotent, others find a different four genes. How many of the results have been duplicated by other labs? Not all of them, since again, they're relatively recent discoveries. In April of this year, researchers found that you can just incubate cells in modified proteins to make them pluripotent. I'm sure there are quite a few experts who are skeptical about that, and probably some who aren't convinced the whole field is anything more than a distraction.
It's not the same type of controversy as surrounds ESC, fortunately, but the techniques used to make IPSC can still be described as controversial as there's still reasonable skepticism about some of them, and there will be for a few more years, though I think everyone expects them to be validated.
Anway, stem cells are different than the reprogrammed cells beyond that. True stem cells are natural cells which have normal roles in cellular proliferation. Induced pluripotent stem cells, while sharing many of the characteristics of true stem cells, are not exactly "Stem cells" because they're completely artificial.
By the way, another complication of stem cells and IPSC being so new is that the terminology itself hasn't been set in stone. A few years ago a defining characteristic of stem cells was said to be that they were slow cycling, wheras since then the field has seemed to disfavor that as a hallmark. For all I know, it may have swung back the other way. There are undoubtedly some people who lump IPSC in with stem cell research, others don't. As a developmental biologist, I tend to think the artificial versus natural is a pretty important distinction.
The only time in the past decade I've had to write in cursive was on the GRE. For some reason they had us copy a honor statement in cursive before we took the test. I wasted about 10 minutes on that stupid thing, my head trying to control my hand, which kept slipping back into how I normally write (I stopped using even lowercase letters back in 8th grade, trying to copy my Dad's blueprint-style handwriting).
Eventually I gave up and just wrote as I normally do but just didn't move the pen off the page between letters. Of course no one ever looked at it and I never heard anything about it.
I wonder if it's not some devious psychological trick to throw the test taker off his game. My fellow grad school students also had to do the same thing, they were all were confused and annoyed by it and eventually gave up like I did. Preparation for the frustration and pointlessness of grad school life maybe.
They do have a point. Doing something like that without permission these days can land you in deep crap.
Uh... I don't think any of the quotes from NeoGAF actually MADE that point.
"shuri" pointed out that it wasn't very professional. (I'd argue that an amateur game journalist is, by definition, not professional.)
"Shockingalberto" called it stupid several times. A real credit to NeoGAF forums right there.
Finally "Tiktaalik" asked a question which seems pretty obvious: he liked the game, had a lot of free time (college student and "amateur game journalist"), and nintendo wouldn't have hired him.
So... nothing I see about how it's dangerous. NeoGAF just seems angry that they weren't included. Maybe it's just typical angry online gamer talk, I don't know.
Can we see if it stands the Bikini test though?
The bikini test could either be that the lawyers involved have to wear bikinis, it could also involve deporting the lawyers to the bikini atoll and then resuming nuclear tests there.
Actually, that's too much work, I'm just going to look at pictures of women in bikinis now.
Actually... just porn.
This entire comment thread is based on patently false notions of the legal system underlying this situation.
The first and foremost being that lawsuits and lawyers follow a set of logical rules.
Picture yourself as the judge. There are two people in front of you, neither of whom you have met. One of them says, "He infringed my patent by operating a business that manufactured millions of units of products utilizing the claimed technique." The other one only says, "Fuck you, slim[e]!" Right off the bat, you are going to be biased against the guy who can't be bothered to explain why he didn't infringe the patent. He just looks like a puerile, sophomoric idiot.
I think everyone can agree that his defense should consist of more than profanity. Responding to this abuse of patent law with a less than professional letter doesn't limit his legal defense to just that though. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
The summary, most commenters, and largely the article itself seem to be missing the big point here
So yes, people glow, and yes, this was known previously. The point of the research is that this can be used, for studying circadian rythms and maybe identifying problems with it and metabolism. The scientist quoted is billed as a "circadian rhythm biologist," you've got to think he's probably not studying this to find out if people glow or not.
The information in the summary is thirdhand at best: whoever makes the summary makes it from an article, which in this case wasn't primary literature from the actual scientists but was AOL news or whoever "imaginova corp" is interviewing several japanese scientists about their work. AOL news seems to have misunderstood the research that they were writing about.
Even things that aren't even remotely, slightly sexual, but show *gasp* skin, are seen as vile, and need to be hidden from sight.
OR I was making a joke about how ugly old man nipples are. Sexual? You're either perverted, can't read, or have never seen old man nipples.
God I hate anonymous trolls.
The entire lab has a GILF fetish. It's a requirement to join the lab that you like em wrinkly and flabby. It's not even a nutrition lab, they're a physics lab. They know what they're doing.
First, this is what you get when the lawyers hold sway over the techies and visionaries.
Sounds to me more like a legal department that is granted too much independence. "Defend our property, I'm assuming because we pay you so much that you know what's reasonable and what should warrant a lawsuit."
I often find that I'm naive when I assume things about companies though.
Second, why o why don't modern companies just stfu with their legal hollering and get on with making products? If they make good products customers will come flocking and that in and of itself secures brand loyalty.
It's more than just lawsuits. DRM is of course another example of companies foolishly wasting more effort trying to maximize profit than they do making things that are actually profitable.
If you're spend X dollars developing a product and then spend 2X dollars making sure you get all the money you can out of selling it, you need to be sure you couldn't have made even more money in the long term by spending that 2X$ on another product. Do companies actually do that ever? I don't work at any of them, but it doesn't seem like they do.
Where else would you find such ingenuity (and such nerdiness)?
Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea according to boston.com.
I remember a partial eclipse here in the states, apparently people were staring at the sun through CDs, which were ineffective. There were warnings on the news to that effect.
The guy taking the picture through exposed X ray films... without knowing anything about those specific films, I'd guess that they wouldn't be doing anything to block UV rays. Does anyone know if they actually do?
these pics look much bigger nicer over at boston.com's The Big Picture, where they were posted yesterday and no doubt scooped and scaled for your link.
To TFAs credit, they didn't just steal the images and scale them: they also did some editing. Specifically they left out the picture of people, including several gross old men, getting into the ganges.
Old man nipples and cherrios don't make for a good morning for me.
You'll be eating those words when China unveils their brand new designed-in-secret anti-ICBM system...
What if they just decide to occupy, say, Alaska?
Wait, so China develops ICBMs, in addition to already having us by the economic short hairs and invades Alaska... and jet fighters of any type would help us there?
In that scenario I personally would be eating Rad-X by the bottle rather than my words, because we've entered Fallout.
The problem is, if you visit your doctor every time you have a zit, and eventually he'll stop seeing you
Ahem, we were talking about my MOLE.... NOT my acne! Insensitive clod!