New Slashdot rule, forget TFA, don't even read the discussion until the 2nd or 3rd time around
How would I know it was the 2nd or 3rd time a story had come up if I don't read anything? I can only hope microsoft will come up with a firefox extension that will alert me when we're in the 2nd discussion of something.
I guess it doesn't matter, I'm just gonna post "first post" anyway...
I would have to disagree with a Teratoma being the worst type of tumor to have (albiet in ones brain of course it could present some serious issues) considering they are mostly benign and very treatable. And on the cool factor you can find some rather interesting things inside of them. I should also say gross factor, as most people do not share my ideas of what is 'cool'
You're talking about the teeth and hair? Yeah, that's gross and cool in my book.
I would wonder how long it would be until we can be absolutely sure that we have successfully reprogrammed these cells. I'm not sure that is possible at this point, though someone feel free to correct me on that, as I am not sure of the process.
Yes, it seems like it's the same as stem cell differentiation after the deprogramming, and we've been working on that for some time. You can definitely get stem cells and IPSC to differentiate in culture prior to implanting. For instance the yamanaka paper or the other initial paper detailing iPSC showed you could direct differentiation into cardiac like cells which would beat in the dish. And they had other ways of showing they directed differentiation of some tissues.
However, making a pure culture is an issue for at least neurons. Not really a good way (as of the last review paper on neurogenesis I read, a year old so I could easily be out of date) to make sure you've gotten all the cells to become postmitotic neurons. I know you can get cultures that are enriched with neurons and are at least mostly neurons, but AFAIK implanting that into a spinal cord lesion might get you teratomas there because of a few cells we can't isolate out yet. And there are probably issues with organization of neurons after that as well.
I realize that I'm thinking only of neurons, since I work on neurogensis (sorta). I should have said that I don't think we're there for brain and spinal cord, but don't know about other tissues. Maybe we've figured out how to turn stem cells into all liver cells already. Maybe pancreatic cells, I think I remember hearing something about that. Anyway, I'd amend my statement to "we might be ready for clinical trials with some non-neural tissues with this finding."
Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses)
Foul! ESC aren't taken from aborted fetuses, they're taken from in vitro fertilization wasted embryos: embryos that were bound for the trash, not on their way to being born. Abortions never were used for embryonic stem cells: those fetuses had already used up their pluripotent stem cells.
Here we report the generation of stable iPSCs from human fibroblasts by directly delivering four reprogramming proteins (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4, and c-Myc) fused with a cell-penetrating peptide (CPP).
Tumor cells are often found to have more c-myc protein than they should, and mice which have too much c-myc develop cancer much more frequently. By getting protein in rather than genes expressing the protein into cells, this is probably safer, as the cells aren't going to continue making c-myc presumably, but it is something that needs to be rigorously tested.
I think the chances of it being anything really dangerous are pretty low. You're going to be turning individual cells with this, growing a whole bunch, and differentiating the cells before putting it into a patient. The protein only needs to work on that first cell, and proteins are turned over pretty quickly, it's likely that by the time you got to making new tissues it would already be gone, and any left over would probably be very dilluted to where it won't have an effect.
Also, you can make these cells without it. C-myc was one of the initial four genes used to make plurpotent cells, but a short while later it was shown that c-myc only increases the efficiency. This current method is low-efficiency, and you'd expect the efficiency to drop even lower without c-myc. As the summary points out, they're already working on ways to increase the efficiency, dollars to doughnuts they're going to be trying it without c-myc in the near future.
As far as the question in the summary
I'd like to hear if anyone has some insight into exactly how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy, and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use."
It puts it a lot closer. Transgenic tissues are much more worrisome than protein-treated tissues. When you give the cell new instructions for how to make proteins that can cause cancer, that's dangerous. Supplying those proteins yourself, not as much.
There is still one major obstacle that's probably a bigger concern: we can deprogram these cells, but you want to be absolutely sure though they're reprogrammed before you put them into a patient. If you want to put new neurons into someone, you have to be sure you've turned all the iPSC into neurons. If you put undifferentiated cells into someone's brain, they tend to develop teratomas, which I think is one of the worst types of tumors to have. They're making strides on that, but I don't think they're to the point where they can say for sure that's not going to happen.
This current breakthrough is absolutely a great thing though, don't mean to diminish it, just that there are other steps.
they keep saying re-creation, and it sounds unique and what not -- sounds like a million squeaky horns i've heard before.
We'll know when the inevitable "Oh, we've had one of those in our family for generations, didn't realize they were supposedly extinct. Sounds kind of like it but not quite" comes forward.
Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.
There is checks and balances. The first is that you don't get into research if you want to cheat your way to the top, you get into law school or politics if you want to do that. The second is repeatability. The third is peer review. What other checks and balances are there? I can't think of any that would actually do anything besides slow down research.
Whoever it's being done by, it seems to be working. Encouragement? Grants, jobs, articles... We don't tell innovators to go to hell. What did you have in mind? I do think we could reward our scientists more, like maybe a tenth of how we reward actors/actresses, models, and sports stars. I mean, I guess that's a little self-serving as I'm a scientist rather than an actor, model, or sports star. We could always do better with that, and research could always go faster, but the research is coming along.
secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse,
They'd be using SCID mice. These mice are often used for xenografts, sometimes with human tissue. For example, here's an abstract describing a study in which researchers implanted human ovarian tissue into SCID mice, and the tissue actually developed into something resembling a functional human ovary. I think I saw the lead researcher give a talk, she thought these tissues would be functional with hormone stimulation.
But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps?
The differences between mouse, chimp, and human neurons are less significant than the higher organization of neurons. I couldn't find figures for numbers of neurons in chimps or mice, but this website indicates that humans have around a hundred billion neurons in the brain, the human brain weighing 1.3-1.4kg. The chimp brain weighs 420 grams. We have more cells in our brains than mice do in their entire body.
Injecting human neurons into a mouse? Wouldn't do anything like make the mouse self aware. It would most likely cause seizures in the mouse. I have no moral objections to it, as long as it was done with a clear research goal. Otherwise, it's probably my tax dollars at work, and those immunocompromised mice they'd be using are expensive to maintain.
If researchers were wanting to make smarter mice, there's more to it than that. They'd first have to figure out how the human brain is made, what patterning differences exist, would have to change the mice, and wouldn't use human neurons. Again, there's not much special about them, it's the organization.
The line here is when they start making brains that look human like in mice. And those would be so big as to crush the mice, so I'm not really worried about that.
Anyway, why are we perpetuating this idea that biologists do morally objectionable research for kicks with their own money? Who is going to fund making a mouse think? Why would researchers be doing this? This would be expensive, would require grants, and wouldn't really have a purpose that I could see.
Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millennium
Maybe not, high-throughput molecular biology is getting better all the time.
-With the genome sequenced we have a rough idea of how many genes there are and can find homologies between genes, so you can begin clustering genes by presumed function.
-With mutagenesis screens, you can sometimes identify most of the genes involved in a given process.
-High-throughput protein interaction studies can identify complexes, grouping proteins into functional groups.
-There's an attempt to make a knockout mouse for every gene in their genome.
None of those will give you the full story for any one gene, nor will any give you good stories for most of the genes by themselves. But used together, we can have a rough idea of what genes do what, and can take a closer look at what we need to. This gene, FOXP2 for example, was not chosen at random.
And that's just with technology I've heard of that exists now. I don't know much about genomics, and we certainly are going to continue to invent ways to get research done faster. I think the human genome project came in under budget and ahead of schedule largely due to technology that was advanced as the project was underway. It's too early to make such long forecasts.
Fact: I've never been to space Fact: My netflixed "everybody loves raymond" DVDs always work for me Fact: These astronauts were in space when their DVDs didn't work Fact: If they hadn't been trying to watch them in space, DRM would have worked like the utopian dream it is. Fact: These space pirates are the only sentient beings affected by DRM. Fact: NASA needs to stop taking my tax money to pirate DVDs in space!
I remember back in the day it was worse. Anything videogame related back in the day was called "Nintendo," by the uncool adults in my life.
Mom:"You've been playing too much nintendo dear, it's time for bed" Me: "I'm not playing any nintendo, this is a sega genesis. I haven't touched the NES at all today." Mom:" I can SEE you playing nintendo RIGHT NOW!" Me: "Gosh darnit mom! You're so unfair! You don't know anything! I wish I was dead!"
I think she may have referred to the PS1 as nintendo as well. Parents just don't understand. I'm really looking forward to doing similar things to my kids.
1. Introduce ridiculously intrusive (yet this side of believable) plan which will do nothing but annoy people, as a pilot program 2. Wait until enough people are annoyed at it or some one in government starts talking about cutting spending on security and doesn't immediately get thrown out of office by voters 3. Announce you've decided not to do it based on feedback/because you don't have enough money to keep america safe 4. ??? 5. PROFIT!
You're right, never is a strong word. Maybe I should have said "always define the acronym unless you're certain everyone will know what it is." In this case, I didn't.
However
And in some cases, the acronym is totally unique and is accepted terminology. Think "AM", "PM", "AD", "BC". "ERP" isn't quite that ubiquitous, but it is enough so that a quick Google search--the modern equivalent of a dictionary search--would tell you exactly what you need to know.
No, I did a wiki search:
The abbreviation, acronym, or initialism SAP may stand for: RamÃn Villeda Morales International Airport, located in San Pedro Sula, Honduras (IATA code is SAP) Serum Amyloid P Component, the identical serum form of Amyloid P component (AP) Santa Paula, California (Amtrak station code: SAP) Second audio program, an auxiliary audio channel for television that can be broadcast or transmitted both over the air and by cable TV Soon As Possible, used in manufacturing and shipping Seminal acid phosphatase, an enzyme produced by the prostate. Special Assistance Plan, an academic programme in Singapore Special access program, Secret clandestine operations program, run by secret governmental agency Stabilisation and Association process of the European Union for the western Balkans states Statements of Administrative Policy, the formal mechanism through which presidential views about pending legislation are communicated to Capitol Hill Standard Assessment Procedure, the UK government's recommended system for energy rating of dwellings Statutory Accounting Principals Strategic Action Programme as part of a GEF international waters project Strike Anywhere Productions, American film company Strong Anthropic Principle, the idea proposing that the universe must produce life Structural Adjustment Program of the IMF Substance Abuse Professional, a specific qualifications needed by drug/alcohol counselors in order to perform drug assessments on individuals tested under the U.S. Federal DOT (United States Department of Transportation) guidelines Superabsorbent polymer, a polymer able to absorb tens or hundreds of times its own weight in water South African Police, the national law enforcement organisation of South Africa between 1913 and 1994 Shrimp Alkaline Phosphatase, a common alkaline phosphatase from a species of arctic shrimp The Seabirds Advisory Panel, a committee set up to advise the British Birds Rarities Committee on seabird records
In computing and technology: SAP AG, a global software company headquartered in Walldorf, Germany or its various products. Either SAP R/3 or SAP ERP, two versions of the enterprise resource planning software product of SAP AG. Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing - origin from SAP AG Session Announcement Protocol, a computer protocol for broadcasting multicast session information Service Advertising Protocol, an IPX network protocol that makes the process of adding and removing services on an IPX internetwork dynamic Service Access Point, an identifying label for network endpoints used in OSI networking Atari SAP music format, format used for storing music from 8-bit Atari computers and consoles System Assistance Processor, an auxiliary I/O processor on IBM mainframes SAP2000, a structural analysis program
A lot of them are obviously not it, but the summary is so vague, that all of these could be what SAP refers to from my perspective
Strategic Action Programme Superabsorbent polymer Second audio program SAP AG, a global software company Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing - origin from SAP AG Session Announcement Protocol Service Advertising Protocol Service Access Point
Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.
More than that, I'm sure there's a natural screening process at work that gets rid of inquisitive people with good heads on their shoulders: the monotony of the job. Looking at people's passports all day has got to be one of the most boring jobs out there. Managing people who look at passports all day and dealing with people who have issues with their passports might be a little more interesting, except with all the paranoia I'm sure they're in a straightjacket and have little power to do anything that someone might think will decrease security.
If you think outside the box, or rather, can think rather than just be a robot, then you're probably going to go crazy and shoot yourself or others if you do it for very long. Or just quit. The ones that left are the ones that are, well, you've seen them if you've ever come through customs.
I guess if we made the pay a lot higher, we could get some better customs agents who could think and who would be able to resolve odd issues like this faster, but that money would come from taxes. And most of us have fingerprints and can pass through customs just fine, and no system is going to be perfect.
Bureaucracies are always very efficient at dealing with things they usually deal with, they're terribly inefficient when dealing with anything out of the ordinary, just like any mindless machine. At least they are as quick as they can be when you do fit neatly into their box.
The lesson here is if you don't have fingerprints and are doing international travel, either contact customs ahead of time or be prepared for a wait.
We're from the government, and we're here to help you!
Uh, what's that got to do with anything? When would that have been said during this exchange? I mean, customs officials don't say "we're from the government" and they DEFINITELY don't say "We're here to help you."
but what about us PC people, and even the PS3 users? No love?
Judging from your average Halo chatter, XBOX users are pretty obsessed with homosexuals. They're ALWAYS talking about the ones on the other team. Maybe Rockstar figured that playstation and PC users didn't care as much about Gay Tony.
players will struggle with the competing loyalties of family and friends, and with the uncertainty about who is real and who is fake in a world in which everyone has a price
That sounds like a description for GTA4 and the first DLC pack. In fact, rockstar has hit me over the head with that theme in every GTA game since they went 3D, and the opening to one of the 2D ones on the PS1. Every single one, you get double crossed by others, and you double cross others. GTA4 had four separate ones that I can remember, and that's not including the first DLC.
You know what would be a really shocking twist? If rockstar made it through an entire GTA -without- a "Surprise! That guy that you thought was your friend is actually a bad guy!" They're the M. Night Shyamalan of videogames.
Fortunately, it's fun regardless of how monotonous that theme gets. The first DLC was surprisingly better than the original in plot, characters, and missions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's another case of really big numbers combining with really small numbers to yield nothing spectacular.
Disco stu: Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continues... AAY!
New Slashdot rule, forget TFA, don't even read the discussion until the 2nd or 3rd time around
How would I know it was the 2nd or 3rd time a story had come up if I don't read anything? I can only hope microsoft will come up with a firefox extension that will alert me when we're in the 2nd discussion of something.
I guess it doesn't matter, I'm just gonna post "first post" anyway...
I would have to disagree with a Teratoma being the worst type of tumor to have (albiet in ones brain of course it could present some serious issues) considering they are mostly benign and very treatable. And on the cool factor you can find some rather interesting things inside of them. I should also say gross factor, as most people do not share my ideas of what is 'cool'
You're talking about the teeth and hair? Yeah, that's gross and cool in my book.
I would wonder how long it would be until we can be absolutely sure that we have successfully reprogrammed these cells. I'm not sure that is possible at this point, though someone feel free to correct me on that, as I am not sure of the process.
Yes, it seems like it's the same as stem cell differentiation after the deprogramming, and we've been working on that for some time. You can definitely get stem cells and IPSC to differentiate in culture prior to implanting. For instance the yamanaka paper or the other initial paper detailing iPSC showed you could direct differentiation into cardiac like cells which would beat in the dish. And they had other ways of showing they directed differentiation of some tissues.
However, making a pure culture is an issue for at least neurons. Not really a good way (as of the last review paper on neurogenesis I read, a year old so I could easily be out of date) to make sure you've gotten all the cells to become postmitotic neurons. I know you can get cultures that are enriched with neurons and are at least mostly neurons, but AFAIK implanting that into a spinal cord lesion might get you teratomas there because of a few cells we can't isolate out yet. And there are probably issues with organization of neurons after that as well.
I realize that I'm thinking only of neurons, since I work on neurogensis (sorta). I should have said that I don't think we're there for brain and spinal cord, but don't know about other tissues. Maybe we've figured out how to turn stem cells into all liver cells already. Maybe pancreatic cells, I think I remember hearing something about that. Anyway, I'd amend my statement to "we might be ready for clinical trials with some non-neural tissues with this finding."
Though fetal stem cells (taken from aborted fetuses)
Foul! ESC aren't taken from aborted fetuses, they're taken from in vitro fertilization wasted embryos: embryos that were bound for the trash, not on their way to being born. Abortions never were used for embryonic stem cells: those fetuses had already used up their pluripotent stem cells.
One potential problem is that they're using c-myc, an oncogene.
From the actual paper
Tumor cells are often found to have more c-myc protein than they should, and mice which have too much c-myc develop cancer much more frequently. By getting protein in rather than genes expressing the protein into cells, this is probably safer, as the cells aren't going to continue making c-myc presumably, but it is something that needs to be rigorously tested.
I think the chances of it being anything really dangerous are pretty low. You're going to be turning individual cells with this, growing a whole bunch, and differentiating the cells before putting it into a patient. The protein only needs to work on that first cell, and proteins are turned over pretty quickly, it's likely that by the time you got to making new tissues it would already be gone, and any left over would probably be very dilluted to where it won't have an effect.
Also, you can make these cells without it. C-myc was one of the initial four genes used to make plurpotent cells, but a short while later it was shown that c-myc only increases the efficiency. This current method is low-efficiency, and you'd expect the efficiency to drop even lower without c-myc. As the summary points out, they're already working on ways to increase the efficiency, dollars to doughnuts they're going to be trying it without c-myc in the near future.
As far as the question in the summary
I'd like to hear if anyone has some insight into exactly how close that brings us to everyday-use of stem cells for regenerative therapy, and exactly what obstacles remain before such therapies can be put to use."
It puts it a lot closer. Transgenic tissues are much more worrisome than protein-treated tissues. When you give the cell new instructions for how to make proteins that can cause cancer, that's dangerous. Supplying those proteins yourself, not as much.
There is still one major obstacle that's probably a bigger concern: we can deprogram these cells, but you want to be absolutely sure though they're reprogrammed before you put them into a patient. If you want to put new neurons into someone, you have to be sure you've turned all the iPSC into neurons. If you put undifferentiated cells into someone's brain, they tend to develop teratomas, which I think is one of the worst types of tumors to have. They're making strides on that, but I don't think they're to the point where they can say for sure that's not going to happen.
This current breakthrough is absolutely a great thing though, don't mean to diminish it, just that there are other steps.
they keep saying re-creation, and it sounds unique and what not -- sounds like a million squeaky horns i've heard before.
We'll know when the inevitable "Oh, we've had one of those in our family for generations, didn't realize they were supposedly extinct. Sounds kind of like it but not quite" comes forward.
Our scientific systems and institutions should have better checks and balances. Many jobs/professions including monitoring and auditing to prevent corruption as standard.
There is checks and balances. The first is that you don't get into research if you want to cheat your way to the top, you get into law school or politics if you want to do that. The second is repeatability. The third is peer review. What other checks and balances are there? I can't think of any that would actually do anything besides slow down research.
Outdated? I don't see anything to replace it.
Whoever it's being done by, it seems to be working. Encouragement? Grants, jobs, articles... We don't tell innovators to go to hell. What did you have in mind? I do think we could reward our scientists more, like maybe a tenth of how we reward actors/actresses, models, and sports stars. I mean, I guess that's a little self-serving as I'm a scientist rather than an actor, model, or sports star. We could always do better with that, and research could always go faster, but the research is coming along.
secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse,
They'd be using SCID mice. These mice are often used for xenografts, sometimes with human tissue. For example, here's an abstract describing a study in which researchers implanted human ovarian tissue into SCID mice, and the tissue actually developed into something resembling a functional human ovary. I think I saw the lead researcher give a talk, she thought these tissues would be functional with hormone stimulation.
But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps?
The differences between mouse, chimp, and human neurons are less significant than the higher organization of neurons. I couldn't find figures for numbers of neurons in chimps or mice, but this website indicates that humans have around a hundred billion neurons in the brain, the human brain weighing 1.3-1.4kg. The chimp brain weighs 420 grams. We have more cells in our brains than mice do in their entire body.
Injecting human neurons into a mouse? Wouldn't do anything like make the mouse self aware. It would most likely cause seizures in the mouse. I have no moral objections to it, as long as it was done with a clear research goal. Otherwise, it's probably my tax dollars at work, and those immunocompromised mice they'd be using are expensive to maintain.
If researchers were wanting to make smarter mice, there's more to it than that. They'd first have to figure out how the human brain is made, what patterning differences exist, would have to change the mice, and wouldn't use human neurons. Again, there's not much special about them, it's the organization.
The line here is when they start making brains that look human like in mice. And those would be so big as to crush the mice, so I'm not really worried about that.
Anyway, why are we perpetuating this idea that biologists do morally objectionable research for kicks with their own money? Who is going to fund making a mouse think? Why would researchers be doing this? This would be expensive, would require grants, and wouldn't really have a purpose that I could see.
Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millennium
Maybe not, high-throughput molecular biology is getting better all the time.
-With the genome sequenced we have a rough idea of how many genes there are and can find homologies between genes, so you can begin clustering genes by presumed function.
-With mutagenesis screens, you can sometimes identify most of the genes involved in a given process.
-High-throughput protein interaction studies can identify complexes, grouping proteins into functional groups.
-There's an attempt to make a knockout mouse for every gene in their genome.
None of those will give you the full story for any one gene, nor will any give you good stories for most of the genes by themselves. But used together, we can have a rough idea of what genes do what, and can take a closer look at what we need to. This gene, FOXP2 for example, was not chosen at random.
And that's just with technology I've heard of that exists now. I don't know much about genomics, and we certainly are going to continue to invent ways to get research done faster. I think the human genome project came in under budget and ahead of schedule largely due to technology that was advanced as the project was underway. It's too early to make such long forecasts.
Fact: I've never been to space
Fact: My netflixed "everybody loves raymond" DVDs always work for me
Fact: These astronauts were in space when their DVDs didn't work
Fact: If they hadn't been trying to watch them in space, DRM would have worked like the utopian dream it is.
Fact: These space pirates are the only sentient beings affected by DRM.
Fact: NASA needs to stop taking my tax money to pirate DVDs in space!
Even NASA fell in the DRM trap.
Yeah, but how many users are taking their DVDs into space?
Yeah, exactly. Checkmate. I win this argument, it's so over I may as well compare something to Hitler.
I remember back in the day it was worse. Anything videogame related back in the day was called "Nintendo," by the uncool adults in my life.
Mom:"You've been playing too much nintendo dear, it's time for bed"
Me: "I'm not playing any nintendo, this is a sega genesis. I haven't touched the NES at all today."
Mom:" I can SEE you playing nintendo RIGHT NOW!"
Me: "Gosh darnit mom! You're so unfair! You don't know anything! I wish I was dead!"
I think she may have referred to the PS1 as nintendo as well. Parents just don't understand. I'm really looking forward to doing similar things to my kids.
A billion? My God, then one out of every 6 people has stolen a laptop!
In ten years imagine what will be happening.
They'll be able to make a flipbook of my fingerprint getting droopy as I age?
This has got to be a joke
Homeland security does love a good laugh.
Actually, this is a devious plot on their part.
1. Introduce ridiculously intrusive (yet this side of believable) plan which will do nothing but annoy people, as a pilot program
2. Wait until enough people are annoyed at it or some one in government starts talking about cutting spending on security and doesn't immediately get thrown out of office by voters
3. Announce you've decided not to do it based on feedback/because you don't have enough money to keep america safe
4. ???
5. PROFIT!
You're right, never is a strong word. Maybe I should have said "always define the acronym unless you're certain everyone will know what it is." In this case, I didn't.
However
And in some cases, the acronym is totally unique and is accepted terminology. Think "AM", "PM", "AD", "BC". "ERP" isn't quite that ubiquitous, but it is enough so that a quick Google search--the modern equivalent of a dictionary search--would tell you exactly what you need to know.
No, I did a wiki search:
A lot of them are obviously not it, but the summary is so vague, that all of these could be what SAP refers to from my perspective
Strategic Action Programme
Superabsorbent polymer
Second audio program
SAP AG, a global software company
Systems, Applications and Products in Data Processing - origin from SAP AG
Session Announcement Protocol
Service Advertising Protocol
Service Access Point
Simply because they're not paid to think. They're drones. If they started showing signs of unique thought and it turned out to be 'the wrong thing', then they'd be out of a job, replaced by another drone. Following protocol is greater assurance of continued employment.
More than that, I'm sure there's a natural screening process at work that gets rid of inquisitive people with good heads on their shoulders: the monotony of the job. Looking at people's passports all day has got to be one of the most boring jobs out there. Managing people who look at passports all day and dealing with people who have issues with their passports might be a little more interesting, except with all the paranoia I'm sure they're in a straightjacket and have little power to do anything that someone might think will decrease security.
If you think outside the box, or rather, can think rather than just be a robot, then you're probably going to go crazy and shoot yourself or others if you do it for very long. Or just quit. The ones that left are the ones that are, well, you've seen them if you've ever come through customs.
I guess if we made the pay a lot higher, we could get some better customs agents who could think and who would be able to resolve odd issues like this faster, but that money would come from taxes. And most of us have fingerprints and can pass through customs just fine, and no system is going to be perfect.
Bureaucracies are always very efficient at dealing with things they usually deal with, they're terribly inefficient when dealing with anything out of the ordinary, just like any mindless machine. At least they are as quick as they can be when you do fit neatly into their box.
The lesson here is if you don't have fingerprints and are doing international travel, either contact customs ahead of time or be prepared for a wait.
Seriously, what is ERP and what is SAP? Like, from a tree?
NEVER USE ACRONYMS WITHOUT DEFINING THEM!
We're from the government, and we're here to help you!
Uh, what's that got to do with anything? When would that have been said during this exchange? I mean, customs officials don't say "we're from the government" and they DEFINITELY don't say "We're here to help you."
Unimpressive, all of you. Most of the atoms in my computer are like, billions of years old.
..actual Night-Life!
Judging from your username, I'm guessing that is going to midnight mass in the OC?
(PS, yes, I know it annoys people from the OC to call it that)
but what about us PC people, and even the PS3 users? No love?
Judging from your average Halo chatter, XBOX users are pretty obsessed with homosexuals. They're ALWAYS talking about the ones on the other team. Maybe Rockstar figured that playstation and PC users didn't care as much about Gay Tony.
players will struggle with the competing loyalties of family and friends, and with the uncertainty about who is real and who is fake in a world in which everyone has a price
That sounds like a description for GTA4 and the first DLC pack. In fact, rockstar has hit me over the head with that theme in every GTA game since they went 3D, and the opening to one of the 2D ones on the PS1. Every single one, you get double crossed by others, and you double cross others. GTA4 had four separate ones that I can remember, and that's not including the first DLC.
You know what would be a really shocking twist? If rockstar made it through an entire GTA -without- a "Surprise! That guy that you thought was your friend is actually a bad guy!" They're the M. Night Shyamalan of videogames.
Fortunately, it's fun regardless of how monotonous that theme gets. The first DLC was surprisingly better than the original in plot, characters, and missions.