In the case of netflix and amazon, they're sorta the same entity. Hulu is probably the one they fear, since they are backed by the networks and "content producers" who are interested in regaining the distribution side of things. And, bonus, Hulu is part owned by comcast. I'm obviously not in any board room discussions, but who wants to bet that if netflix and amazon don't pay up, their customers will suddenly find that netflix and amazon are nothing but buffering while Hulu offers everyone a free month of mega super duper high-def hulu plus.
One could further conjecture that the Hulu conspiracy players would be fine if ALL streaming companies including Hulu took a hit, as they'd like nothing more than to stop the cord cutting momentum and get people back on cable.
The male handler will be handling both your control and variable, so you'll still see an effect though. You'll get different magnitude of results, but it shouldn't affect the reproducibility of it.
This may be affecting experiments, but if you're designing your experiments correctly, it won't change your results. The "male in the room" effect should affect all animals the same.
You have a control set and a variable set of mice. The animal handlers should be the same for both, and they shouldn't know if at all possible which is which. Males on the staff will stress out the mice, okay, but they'll stress out both control and variable mice the same. Having a female undergrad handle the control cages and a male undergrad handle the variable mice you're using to try to prove your drug makes them hurt less is going to skew your results independent of gender scents.
That's not directly contradicting what he said though: unless researchers are directly patch-clamping the pain nerves in the mouse feet while doing this and showing there are fewer pain signals from the same injury, one can't say for sure they're feeling less pain as opposed to simply hiding it. The stress might be working at the paw, or it might be working in the brain.
You're not quantifying your reactions to pain. If someone kept track of how often you said "Ouch, my throat" or grimmaced while swallowing, you could probably get an idea. It would be a proxy measure at best, maybe you were just used to it and it hurt the same amount. But one needs to quantify something in order to know if it's working.
Animal studies are usually pretty messy even if you're not measuring behavior. Everyone who works with animals knows this. It's also more expensive. If you're testing a hypothesis and have the choice of testing it on some cells in a dish with an assay that turns from blue to white, or you could do an experiment on whether mice are in pain, only an insane researcher would choose the mice. So the only times people do things like try to tell if mice are in more or less pain are when there's no other option. And in those cases, one must make up a metric and do analysis that leads to odd things like "36% less pain."
It would be more accurate to say there was a 36% less reaction to pain, though. Otherwise, it sounds like they're pretending they can directly measure pain.
They're rich and old enough that it doesn't actually matter to their wealth one way or another. They'll be dead before renewables take the crown and their grandchildren will have plenty of money to piss away on coke and crashing luxury cars into the peasants. They have 36 billion dollars each. That's an utterly insane amount of money. The "sensible" thing to do would be to stop worrying about anything, aside from maybe a violent redistribution of wealth.
I suspect that if anyone of us had a thousandth of that wealth, literally a thousandth, we'd probably think about retiring, not starting a selfish campaign in washington to march the world toward climate change.
At this point, this is simply who they are. Their continued acquisition of wealth is closer to an addiction or self delusion than a sensible course of action. They oppose solar not because it threatens them but because not caring about it is just not what they do.
Which makes it worse, they're robbing future generations simply as a hobby.
As I said, we already have that: the corporations comply gleefully with every government whim because the government pays them for it, and if they don't, the government slaps them down. With such an effective carrot and stick scheme going, ISPs offer no benefit over straight government. They're just middlemen.
No, I said there were two reasons why they won't, with the implication that they are stupid reasons. And I know that I'm not being offered that by private ISPs.
A limit need not be absolutely unbreakable to be a limit like the speed of light in a vacuum. With your example, losing one's teeth WAS a limit on lifespan. It's no longer a limit though because we navigated past it. TFA is saying one of the next limits may be running out of stem cells. No one is saying you can't possibly replenish stem cells.
shRNA didn't "pan out" in the sense that it didn't immediately seem effective for therapeutic purposes. As far as research goes, it's extremely useful. In fact, I'd argue it's more useful to research than crispr can be, it's a more versatile tool. Furthermore, research into using shRNA fell out of vogue with the pharmecuticals: that doesn't mean it's dead.
Why not have the government administer a program to provide wifi in all urban areas? Yes, it will suck, but I'm convinced it would suck less than what we have now. From what I can tell, we have zero advantages that private entities are supposed to be bringing. There's no competition going on to offer us better services. Choice in services is a joke. The service we are offered sucks. There's no free market efficiency aside from how they bill you. With subsidies, we're already paying through taxes to support it, and we don't get what we are promised in return for those subsidies. Aside from google, it doesn't seem like anyone is actually putting any effort into improving existing services. We don't enjoy protection from government censorship or even privacy, telecoms gleefully comply with any government whim as long as they get paid to do it.
We get all the downsides of private enterprise too: we pay directly, our information is sold on the free market, we indirectly fund lobbyists who change laws against us, and internet access is not recognized as a right or a necessity (which in my opinion, it is both).
It seems to me that there are two things preventing the government from offering us something better: 1. The telecoms are too powerful for it to be nationalized and 2. We have a bunch of people who think anything the government does is communism and evil.
Wrong. The objections to glass are that there's a camera on them with no indication they're recording. I didn't watch the video (did we as a society just collectively say "fuck it, why type something out when you can talk into a camera?") but it doesn't look like there's a camera on there.
The privacy concerns are one thing. If you're just objecting to someone having a video display on their face, then you're simply being a Luddite, and this isn't the place for you.
If anything, you should be cheering this on: this is a competitor to google glass without the privacy issues.
On 1, how honest is the "it will interfere with emergency services" reason? I've heard police in particular have unofficially switched to cell phones for sensitive information. And I'd imagine that there are always people willing to sell the government new and improved technology to "protect" against nefarious "terrorists" who might theoretically stage an attack and then mess with ambulances (and the lobbyists would of course assure everyone that this was 800% likely to happen.)
I'm just wondering if that's actually a nonsense argument the FCC uses to hold onto every bit of power they have. But I know nothing about it, which is why I'm asking.
The idea being that a white individual had advantages leading up to that point that the black or hispanic individual did not have, and the only way to keep that from happening again is to intentionally correct it. I don't know if that's true, and obviously no one does, but it sounds a lot more justifiable to me than "Treat all races the same." We know from ample history and current events that past injustices keep their effects for a long time, certainly longer than the time since the civil rights.
You called it. Congrats? What are we supposed to do with that information?
I understand your frustration, but I think you're misdirected. I think what the problem is here is apathy about issues such as net neutrality that matter. People were jazzed up enough to vote Obama into the white house twice, but not jazzed up about actual issues. Romney, McCain, Obama, Bush... it doesn't matter who we get: if we don't really care about an issue, it's going to be decided by special interests.
"They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president." I'd argue that's accurate: the American people weren't saying much on this issue. There was very little to drown out.
Fine, then you're oversimplifying a complex position. Not all minorities have the same disadvantages. To insist they are is as idiotic as insisting that every individual of a minority population is disadvantaged.
In this specific case yes. Netsavior was likely more concerned about how this would play out in the future than the specific pot-influenced driver in question. Me too: this driver can go to hell for all I care. It's the precedent I care about.
The data appears to support her stance. Also the "why" matters a great deal. If she doesn't think they're capable of getting in because there's some type of discrimination against them, then no, that's not racist. If she's saying "Because hispanics, like me, are just lazy and stupid," then yeah, that's racism. But I doubt it's the latter.
Care to explain? Affirmative action assumes that some races have disadvantages that can be compensated for. It doesn't assume all non-white races have the same disadvantage, nor is it simply a handout of "you're not white, here's some gimmies." Do you feel that Asian Americans have the same education and economic disadvantages that African or Hispanic Americans have? Because if you're making that assumption, there's undoubtedly data and graphs you could use to prove it.
I'm not arguing they are or are not, just you're making some unsupported assumptions, either about the goals of affirmative action or about racial something or other.
I think you follow game marketing more closely than you should. They're always going to exaggerate how new and exciting their games are going to be, so why listen to marketing?
DA1, for example, was enjoyable by most standards. I'm not sure what "new shit" you were expecting, since I didn't bother with the trailer, but if you had realistic expectations not buoyed by marketing hype, it was good.
To me, they seem to be crappy only in their sales. For a while, they were saying things along the lines of "We don't think 'steam sales' are really the way to go. I don't think players really demand that, etc." Which is downright funny, even before they woke up and realized that you can't challenge something as dominant as steam by explicitly offering customers less incentive to join up just by telling them they want it, and had one or two sales.
As far as origin itself in function, I don't really have complaints. I use steam far, far more often, so it's probably just a sampling error, but I've had multiple instances of steam not allowing me to play in offline mode, while this never seems to happen with origin. I would estimate I've had that problem one in two hundred or so times starting up steam, while in the ten or so times I've started up origin, it's done offline mode fine. Some games have required a connection, but not origin. So there's that.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of netflix and amazon, they're sorta the same entity. Hulu is probably the one they fear, since they are backed by the networks and "content producers" who are interested in regaining the distribution side of things. And, bonus, Hulu is part owned by comcast. I'm obviously not in any board room discussions, but who wants to bet that if netflix and amazon don't pay up, their customers will suddenly find that netflix and amazon are nothing but buffering while Hulu offers everyone a free month of mega super duper high-def hulu plus.
One could further conjecture that the Hulu conspiracy players would be fine if ALL streaming companies including Hulu took a hit, as they'd like nothing more than to stop the cord cutting momentum and get people back on cable.
The male handler will be handling both your control and variable, so you'll still see an effect though. You'll get different magnitude of results, but it shouldn't affect the reproducibility of it.
This may be affecting experiments, but if you're designing your experiments correctly, it won't change your results. The "male in the room" effect should affect all animals the same.
You have a control set and a variable set of mice. The animal handlers should be the same for both, and they shouldn't know if at all possible which is which. Males on the staff will stress out the mice, okay, but they'll stress out both control and variable mice the same. Having a female undergrad handle the control cages and a male undergrad handle the variable mice you're using to try to prove your drug makes them hurt less is going to skew your results independent of gender scents.
That's not directly contradicting what he said though: unless researchers are directly patch-clamping the pain nerves in the mouse feet while doing this and showing there are fewer pain signals from the same injury, one can't say for sure they're feeling less pain as opposed to simply hiding it. The stress might be working at the paw, or it might be working in the brain.
You're not quantifying your reactions to pain. If someone kept track of how often you said "Ouch, my throat" or grimmaced while swallowing, you could probably get an idea. It would be a proxy measure at best, maybe you were just used to it and it hurt the same amount. But one needs to quantify something in order to know if it's working.
Animal studies are usually pretty messy even if you're not measuring behavior. Everyone who works with animals knows this. It's also more expensive. If you're testing a hypothesis and have the choice of testing it on some cells in a dish with an assay that turns from blue to white, or you could do an experiment on whether mice are in pain, only an insane researcher would choose the mice. So the only times people do things like try to tell if mice are in more or less pain are when there's no other option. And in those cases, one must make up a metric and do analysis that leads to odd things like "36% less pain."
It would be more accurate to say there was a 36% less reaction to pain, though. Otherwise, it sounds like they're pretending they can directly measure pain.
They're rich and old enough that it doesn't actually matter to their wealth one way or another. They'll be dead before renewables take the crown and their grandchildren will have plenty of money to piss away on coke and crashing luxury cars into the peasants. They have 36 billion dollars each. That's an utterly insane amount of money. The "sensible" thing to do would be to stop worrying about anything, aside from maybe a violent redistribution of wealth.
I suspect that if anyone of us had a thousandth of that wealth, literally a thousandth, we'd probably think about retiring, not starting a selfish campaign in washington to march the world toward climate change.
At this point, this is simply who they are. Their continued acquisition of wealth is closer to an addiction or self delusion than a sensible course of action. They oppose solar not because it threatens them but because not caring about it is just not what they do.
Which makes it worse, they're robbing future generations simply as a hobby.
You mean like let my competitors use the roads?
As I said, we already have that: the corporations comply gleefully with every government whim because the government pays them for it, and if they don't, the government slaps them down. With such an effective carrot and stick scheme going, ISPs offer no benefit over straight government. They're just middlemen.
No, I said there were two reasons why they won't, with the implication that they are stupid reasons. And I know that I'm not being offered that by private ISPs.
A limit need not be absolutely unbreakable to be a limit like the speed of light in a vacuum. With your example, losing one's teeth WAS a limit on lifespan. It's no longer a limit though because we navigated past it. TFA is saying one of the next limits may be running out of stem cells. No one is saying you can't possibly replenish stem cells.
shRNA didn't "pan out" in the sense that it didn't immediately seem effective for therapeutic purposes. As far as research goes, it's extremely useful. In fact, I'd argue it's more useful to research than crispr can be, it's a more versatile tool. Furthermore, research into using shRNA fell out of vogue with the pharmecuticals: that doesn't mean it's dead.
Why not have the government administer a program to provide wifi in all urban areas? Yes, it will suck, but I'm convinced it would suck less than what we have now. From what I can tell, we have zero advantages that private entities are supposed to be bringing. There's no competition going on to offer us better services. Choice in services is a joke. The service we are offered sucks. There's no free market efficiency aside from how they bill you. With subsidies, we're already paying through taxes to support it, and we don't get what we are promised in return for those subsidies. Aside from google, it doesn't seem like anyone is actually putting any effort into improving existing services. We don't enjoy protection from government censorship or even privacy, telecoms gleefully comply with any government whim as long as they get paid to do it.
We get all the downsides of private enterprise too: we pay directly, our information is sold on the free market, we indirectly fund lobbyists who change laws against us, and internet access is not recognized as a right or a necessity (which in my opinion, it is both).
It seems to me that there are two things preventing the government from offering us something better: 1. The telecoms are too powerful for it to be nationalized and 2. We have a bunch of people who think anything the government does is communism and evil.
Wrong. The objections to glass are that there's a camera on them with no indication they're recording. I didn't watch the video (did we as a society just collectively say "fuck it, why type something out when you can talk into a camera?") but it doesn't look like there's a camera on there.
The privacy concerns are one thing. If you're just objecting to someone having a video display on their face, then you're simply being a Luddite, and this isn't the place for you.
If anything, you should be cheering this on: this is a competitor to google glass without the privacy issues.
On 1, how honest is the "it will interfere with emergency services" reason? I've heard police in particular have unofficially switched to cell phones for sensitive information. And I'd imagine that there are always people willing to sell the government new and improved technology to "protect" against nefarious "terrorists" who might theoretically stage an attack and then mess with ambulances (and the lobbyists would of course assure everyone that this was 800% likely to happen.)
I'm just wondering if that's actually a nonsense argument the FCC uses to hold onto every bit of power they have. But I know nothing about it, which is why I'm asking.
Except that everyone DOES call them phones because unlike horses and cars, phones somewhat gradually transformed into mini mobile computers.
For your analogy to work, we'd have to have started augmenting horses with cyborg parts until we arrive at cars still calling them horses.
Incidentally, Henry Ford seems a lot less badass now. He should have been doing radical surgery to get internal combustion engines into Clydesdales.
The idea being that a white individual had advantages leading up to that point that the black or hispanic individual did not have, and the only way to keep that from happening again is to intentionally correct it. I don't know if that's true, and obviously no one does, but it sounds a lot more justifiable to me than "Treat all races the same." We know from ample history and current events that past injustices keep their effects for a long time, certainly longer than the time since the civil rights.
That $300k per year is what you get if you're welding under water or on a sky scraper.
Well shit, man, why wouldn't you be welding underwater? That sounds AWESOME!
You called it. Congrats? What are we supposed to do with that information?
I understand your frustration, but I think you're misdirected. I think what the problem is here is apathy about issues such as net neutrality that matter. People were jazzed up enough to vote Obama into the white house twice, but not jazzed up about actual issues. Romney, McCain, Obama, Bush... it doesn't matter who we get: if we don't really care about an issue, it's going to be decided by special interests.
"They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president." I'd argue that's accurate: the American people weren't saying much on this issue. There was very little to drown out.
Fine, then you're oversimplifying a complex position. Not all minorities have the same disadvantages. To insist they are is as idiotic as insisting that every individual of a minority population is disadvantaged.
In this specific case yes. Netsavior was likely more concerned about how this would play out in the future than the specific pot-influenced driver in question. Me too: this driver can go to hell for all I care. It's the precedent I care about.
The data appears to support her stance. Also the "why" matters a great deal. If she doesn't think they're capable of getting in because there's some type of discrimination against them, then no, that's not racist. If she's saying "Because hispanics, like me, are just lazy and stupid," then yeah, that's racism. But I doubt it's the latter.
Care to explain? Affirmative action assumes that some races have disadvantages that can be compensated for. It doesn't assume all non-white races have the same disadvantage, nor is it simply a handout of "you're not white, here's some gimmies." Do you feel that Asian Americans have the same education and economic disadvantages that African or Hispanic Americans have? Because if you're making that assumption, there's undoubtedly data and graphs you could use to prove it.
I'm not arguing they are or are not, just you're making some unsupported assumptions, either about the goals of affirmative action or about racial something or other.
I think you follow game marketing more closely than you should. They're always going to exaggerate how new and exciting their games are going to be, so why listen to marketing?
DA1, for example, was enjoyable by most standards. I'm not sure what "new shit" you were expecting, since I didn't bother with the trailer, but if you had realistic expectations not buoyed by marketing hype, it was good.
That shouldn't have been your ONLY problem with two...
To me, they seem to be crappy only in their sales. For a while, they were saying things along the lines of "We don't think 'steam sales' are really the way to go. I don't think players really demand that, etc." Which is downright funny, even before they woke up and realized that you can't challenge something as dominant as steam by explicitly offering customers less incentive to join up just by telling them they want it, and had one or two sales.
As far as origin itself in function, I don't really have complaints. I use steam far, far more often, so it's probably just a sampling error, but I've had multiple instances of steam not allowing me to play in offline mode, while this never seems to happen with origin. I would estimate I've had that problem one in two hundred or so times starting up steam, while in the ten or so times I've started up origin, it's done offline mode fine. Some games have required a connection, but not origin. So there's that.