I'd respond that nature selects against them. Males with downs syndrome are infertile for reasons which are not clear. And a quick google search suggested that with females, the extra chromosome doesn't get passed on, so the disease isn't necessarily inheritable at all. Downs syndrome always arises spontaneously, and will continue to do so.
You haven't read the militant deaf culture much! Kids who are using implants for the first time have trouble getting used to it! And... well that's about it from what I have read. My kid doesn't like wearing pants. Guess I'm killing pants-less culture.
Question: how often are the profits from said illegal activity also forfeited on top of the fine? Is it "never" or is it "almost never"? Or am I being too cynical here? I'm not, am I? I'm being naive for even asking?
He noticed a spike in people saying GG and takes that as a general sign that the atmosphere is improving. Is it that, or are trolls tone basically unchanged, but they're just saying "GG" to get their honor stat back a little?
The problem with closing loopholes isn't figuring out what needs to be done. It's usually obvious: you close the fucking loophole.
The problem is usually actually doing it without giving up more ground than you get. Law enforcement anywhere tends to think that oversight is a conspiracy to aid the bad guys, and resists thinking that they themselves are or even can be the bad guys. LAPD in particular. That mindset goes back a long time and is undoubtedly entrenched at every level. Any moves which actually bring the LAPD under reasonable oversight will be resisted by damn near everyone.
With campaign finance reform, that's resisted for similar reasons, but there's competition working for it: a politician who says he wants to reform things might be hurt by it, but so will his opponents. With law enforcement, reform isn't really beneficial to anyone since it just hurts everyone and no one gets ahead by enacting it.
8. EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURE
Inhalation: Remove from exposure. If breathing is difficult or has stopped, administer artificial respiration or oxygen as indicated. Immediately seek medical aid.
Skin Contact: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Seed medical aid.
Eye Contact: Flush immediately with large amounts of water, lifting the lower and upper lids occasionally. Seed medical help.
Ingestion: Give 1 -2 large glasses of water or milk. Induce vomiting. Immediately seek medical aid. Never give liquids to an unconscious person.
This is bureaucratic troubles, not partisan politics. No one is opposed to iPS on ideological grounds. Well, no one who is worth considering anyway. iPS aren't made from embryos. ESC are the ones that conservatives hate, that come from fertilized eggs.
Property taxes and rent rising pushes out renters who have lived there a long time. People like their neighbors and work to establish a safe community only to be priced out of it BECAUSE they made it safe. They end up having to move to a more distant neighborhood which is once again unsafe. Now they have to commute further to work and have less money from the move. Moving to a new apartment generally means paying higher rent in cities if you keep the same level of nice neighborhood, so it's likely a step down.
I mean, it sounds reasonable to me. Not compelling enough for me to not move to a gentrifying area (which I have before and don't feel particularly guilty about), but I understand why it upsets some people legitimately. I do think a lot of it is simply entitlement or making excuses for envy. Obviously tipping over someone's car isn't a rational way of trying to keep prices for long-term residents down: people who have already moved in are just going to hire more cops which will increase taxes which will hasten the poorer residents being priced out. No, those idiots were either simply troublemakers or at best angry because they didn't have a nice shiny smartcar while their neighbors did.
I thought it was "grass" like as in pot. Maybe in French airports, foie gras is a currency you can use to pay for transport. Or do you mean "generally recognized as safe?" Because I'd take safety over... uh... ass or gas.
I must have been actually working last month because I haven't heard about the entanglement-enhanced microscope. Does it do fluorescence microscopy? The was no mention of fluorescence in the article. It sounds like this is just better DIC imaging, which is of limited use in biology. Electron microscopy has (literally) been around since before the internet and has better resolution than anything you're going to get with light. Light microscopy seems to be primarily important today for basic stuff like whole tissue imaging (generally not requiring the resolution described here) or fluorescence microscopy, which it doesn't sound like this microscope can do. Fluorescence is useful because with most applications, you're trying to visualize a small thing in a much much much bigger volume of stuff. Like you're trying to see a protein within a cell within a tissue. Looking at cells with light for a small thing doesn't tell you much, you just see a blur. When the small thing is basically emitting it's own light, as happens sorta with fluorescence, you can see it.
I'm not going to say it doesn't sound useful, since most of the time, you only realize how useful a thing is once you already have it. I'll just say that if the microscope mentioned here doesn't do fluorescence, I can't think of anything one would use it for that they wouldn't be able to do better with EM or fluorescence microscopy.
The second definitely does. There doesn't seem to be a straighforward way of getting youtube on the roku 2 though, so lets not hold roku up as an example of doing everything perfectly.
That sounds like a false dichotomy. Your first bullet point would be true unless some smart engineer figured out how to make it a reasonable size. I hear they have some smart engineers working at google. On your second, you would likely save money on upgrades, not having to replace the whole phone, and probably going longer between upgrades. The third is wild predictions. If the design concept takes off and becomes the standard model, then it's going to save a lot of waste.
The internet hates everything. Seriously, name one goddamn thing someone on the internet isn't hating on. ANYTHING!!!! Sex, beer, hip hop, music that ISN'T hip hop, air, the moon... there's someone out there who has a blog dedicated to spreading hate about that thing.
There are nerds on the internet who hate Wil. That means he actually exists. That is all that means.
The topic though is about genetic testing. What psychosomatic diseases are going to be revealed with genetic testing? WiFi poisoning, for example, isn't going to be revealed by genome sequencing. I mean, since it's a bunch of bull-crap.
I suppose that telling someone they're predisposed to depression or some other psychological diseases might increase that incidence though now that I think about it.
Melting and drinking one's computer would be a pretty dramatic way to show one was unhappy.
Also, no one probably set down their computer. Even if it was a laptop, it was probably on a table or something. So maybe someone was confused by that. Probably not, but the saying isn't perfect here. Lets all just agree to that and move on. Dear God, the lengths I'm going to to procrastinate...
To be fair, most successful businesses of all types find ways of getting the citizens to foot the bills. I mean, businesses can't really give back 100% of what they get from a community and still be profitable, that would probably violate the laws of thermodynamics. Furthermore, a business which leeches off the community is going to have a huge advantage over a competitor that doesn't.
Carbon still needs to be disposed of too, we're just allowing coal plants to pretend it doesn't. Simply because it floats away and negatively impacts everyone across the globe a slight bit, most of whom are in other countries.
In other words, yes, you're right, fossil fuels externalize the costs of waste disposal while nuclear does not. To me, that's an argument in favor of subsidizing nuclear rather than coal: it's a lot easier to deal with nuclear waste that's in one place rather than deal with the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.
How many diseases are there where the chances of getting it can be increased or the symptoms worsened by psychosomatic influence, yet which CANNOT be prevented or mitigated with advance knowledge? Not a hypothetical question, I honestly don't know.
Huntington's disease is the big one people worry about with genetic testing as there is no treatment. It looks like there's only specific conditions under which it can go either way. If there's literature showing that the 36-39 range can be affected by psychosomatic effects, I didn't see it on google. I did find this which looks like advance knowledge of huntington's disease is helpful in the long run. At the very least, you can plan ahead.
Other diseases like predisposition to cancer, there's clear benefits to knowledge. If you know you are likely to develop breast cancer due to BRCA mutations, you're clearly better off knowing that than not. If you have a mastectomy because of that knowledge, then that more than negates the increases in risks due to psychosomatic effects.
More common diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity, knowledge you're predisposed to that genetically might give people an excuse to be lazy and not prevent it, but I'm guessing such people would find an excuse anyway.
And when these labs, often remote, have power failures, how do the doors lock? They don't.
Are you saying this based on some source or are you just assuming there's no contingency plans because the wikipedia page I linked to doesn't specifically mention them? You appear to be arguing the plan as summarized by wikipedia is inadequate. Definitely. That's why it's not used as the standard (hopefully.)
Standards are great, but as anyone in computers knows, having standards doesn't mean adherence to them. You only need to meet them once every audit. And if the lab is government, the inspectors and lab are funded by the same group, so there''s a conflict of interest. What could possibly go wrong?
So, what is the alternative exactly? Shut it down because something MIGHT go wrong despite all odds? Have a non-government organization either audit or run the labs?
Slashdot Mirror
I'd respond that nature selects against them. Males with downs syndrome are infertile for reasons which are not clear. And a quick google search suggested that with females, the extra chromosome doesn't get passed on, so the disease isn't necessarily inheritable at all. Downs syndrome always arises spontaneously, and will continue to do so.
You haven't read the militant deaf culture much! Kids who are using implants for the first time have trouble getting used to it! And... well that's about it from what I have read. My kid doesn't like wearing pants. Guess I'm killing pants-less culture.
Question: how often are the profits from said illegal activity also forfeited on top of the fine? Is it "never" or is it "almost never"? Or am I being too cynical here? I'm not, am I? I'm being naive for even asking?
He noticed a spike in people saying GG and takes that as a general sign that the atmosphere is improving. Is it that, or are trolls tone basically unchanged, but they're just saying "GG" to get their honor stat back a little?
The problem with closing loopholes isn't figuring out what needs to be done. It's usually obvious: you close the fucking loophole.
The problem is usually actually doing it without giving up more ground than you get. Law enforcement anywhere tends to think that oversight is a conspiracy to aid the bad guys, and resists thinking that they themselves are or even can be the bad guys. LAPD in particular. That mindset goes back a long time and is undoubtedly entrenched at every level. Any moves which actually bring the LAPD under reasonable oversight will be resisted by damn near everyone.
With campaign finance reform, that's resisted for similar reasons, but there's competition working for it: a politician who says he wants to reform things might be hurt by it, but so will his opponents. With law enforcement, reform isn't really beneficial to anyone since it just hurts everyone and no one gets ahead by enacting it.
Only the mad conspiracy hatters will be disappointed, because they already know that planet X is on a collision course with us.
Uh... how would that be a conspiracy? Planet X and the Sun are conspiring to destroy Earth?
when everything is described as dangerous, nothing gets treated as dangerous.
We're already there. Table salt has warnings on it.
8. EMERGENCY AND FIRST AID PROCEDURE Inhalation: Remove from exposure. If breathing is difficult or has stopped, administer artificial respiration or oxygen as indicated. Immediately seek medical aid. Skin Contact: Wash thoroughly with soap and water. Seed medical aid. Eye Contact: Flush immediately with large amounts of water, lifting the lower and upper lids occasionally. Seed medical help. Ingestion: Give 1 -2 large glasses of water or milk. Induce vomiting. Immediately seek medical aid. Never give liquids to an unconscious person.
Is the "belching toxic death" thing specific to this type of nuclear reactor, or are you talking about coal?
This is bureaucratic troubles, not partisan politics. No one is opposed to iPS on ideological grounds. Well, no one who is worth considering anyway. iPS aren't made from embryos. ESC are the ones that conservatives hate, that come from fertilized eggs.
Property taxes and rent rising pushes out renters who have lived there a long time. People like their neighbors and work to establish a safe community only to be priced out of it BECAUSE they made it safe. They end up having to move to a more distant neighborhood which is once again unsafe. Now they have to commute further to work and have less money from the move. Moving to a new apartment generally means paying higher rent in cities if you keep the same level of nice neighborhood, so it's likely a step down.
I mean, it sounds reasonable to me. Not compelling enough for me to not move to a gentrifying area (which I have before and don't feel particularly guilty about), but I understand why it upsets some people legitimately. I do think a lot of it is simply entitlement or making excuses for envy. Obviously tipping over someone's car isn't a rational way of trying to keep prices for long-term residents down: people who have already moved in are just going to hire more cops which will increase taxes which will hasten the poorer residents being priced out. No, those idiots were either simply troublemakers or at best angry because they didn't have a nice shiny smartcar while their neighbors did.
Three cars tipped over is "crazy" and a reason to avoid a place? No one was in or under the cars, you realize. There were no deaths or injuries.
You go ahead and stay in your padded cave if that scares you.
I'm still waiting on those claims to come true of 2D printing.
I thought it was "grass" like as in pot. Maybe in French airports, foie gras is a currency you can use to pay for transport. Or do you mean "generally recognized as safe?" Because I'd take safety over... uh... ass or gas.
I must have been actually working last month because I haven't heard about the entanglement-enhanced microscope. Does it do fluorescence microscopy? The was no mention of fluorescence in the article. It sounds like this is just better DIC imaging, which is of limited use in biology. Electron microscopy has (literally) been around since before the internet and has better resolution than anything you're going to get with light. Light microscopy seems to be primarily important today for basic stuff like whole tissue imaging (generally not requiring the resolution described here) or fluorescence microscopy, which it doesn't sound like this microscope can do. Fluorescence is useful because with most applications, you're trying to visualize a small thing in a much much much bigger volume of stuff. Like you're trying to see a protein within a cell within a tissue. Looking at cells with light for a small thing doesn't tell you much, you just see a blur. When the small thing is basically emitting it's own light, as happens sorta with fluorescence, you can see it.
There are also already fluorescence based microscopy techniques which surpass the diffraction limit.
I'm not going to say it doesn't sound useful, since most of the time, you only realize how useful a thing is once you already have it. I'll just say that if the microscope mentioned here doesn't do fluorescence, I can't think of anything one would use it for that they wouldn't be able to do better with EM or fluorescence microscopy.
They're not really mutually exclusive though. You can have a fancy automated house and still have a $5 smoke detector as well.
I mean, I assume Nest devices won't send out predator droids to destroy competing products. Maybe that's an unsafe assumption.
The second definitely does. There doesn't seem to be a straighforward way of getting youtube on the roku 2 though, so lets not hold roku up as an example of doing everything perfectly.
Not every hypothesis needs to be shocking to be reportable. Sure, lots of people could have guessed, but how many people actually proved it?
That sounds like a false dichotomy. Your first bullet point would be true unless some smart engineer figured out how to make it a reasonable size. I hear they have some smart engineers working at google. On your second, you would likely save money on upgrades, not having to replace the whole phone, and probably going longer between upgrades. The third is wild predictions. If the design concept takes off and becomes the standard model, then it's going to save a lot of waste.
Be skeptical, not cynical.
The internet hates everything. Seriously, name one goddamn thing someone on the internet isn't hating on. ANYTHING!!!! Sex, beer, hip hop, music that ISN'T hip hop, air, the moon... there's someone out there who has a blog dedicated to spreading hate about that thing.
There are nerds on the internet who hate Wil. That means he actually exists. That is all that means.
The topic though is about genetic testing. What psychosomatic diseases are going to be revealed with genetic testing? WiFi poisoning, for example, isn't going to be revealed by genome sequencing. I mean, since it's a bunch of bull-crap.
I suppose that telling someone they're predisposed to depression or some other psychological diseases might increase that incidence though now that I think about it.
Melting and drinking one's computer would be a pretty dramatic way to show one was unhappy.
Also, no one probably set down their computer. Even if it was a laptop, it was probably on a table or something. So maybe someone was confused by that. Probably not, but the saying isn't perfect here. Lets all just agree to that and move on. Dear God, the lengths I'm going to to procrastinate...
To be fair, most successful businesses of all types find ways of getting the citizens to foot the bills. I mean, businesses can't really give back 100% of what they get from a community and still be profitable, that would probably violate the laws of thermodynamics. Furthermore, a business which leeches off the community is going to have a huge advantage over a competitor that doesn't.
Carbon still needs to be disposed of too, we're just allowing coal plants to pretend it doesn't. Simply because it floats away and negatively impacts everyone across the globe a slight bit, most of whom are in other countries.
In other words, yes, you're right, fossil fuels externalize the costs of waste disposal while nuclear does not. To me, that's an argument in favor of subsidizing nuclear rather than coal: it's a lot easier to deal with nuclear waste that's in one place rather than deal with the effects of carbon in the atmosphere.
How many diseases are there where the chances of getting it can be increased or the symptoms worsened by psychosomatic influence, yet which CANNOT be prevented or mitigated with advance knowledge? Not a hypothetical question, I honestly don't know.
Huntington's disease is the big one people worry about with genetic testing as there is no treatment. It looks like there's only specific conditions under which it can go either way. If there's literature showing that the 36-39 range can be affected by psychosomatic effects, I didn't see it on google. I did find this which looks like advance knowledge of huntington's disease is helpful in the long run. At the very least, you can plan ahead.
Other diseases like predisposition to cancer, there's clear benefits to knowledge. If you know you are likely to develop breast cancer due to BRCA mutations, you're clearly better off knowing that than not. If you have a mastectomy because of that knowledge, then that more than negates the increases in risks due to psychosomatic effects.
More common diseases like diabetes, high blood pressure, and obesity, knowledge you're predisposed to that genetically might give people an excuse to be lazy and not prevent it, but I'm guessing such people would find an excuse anyway.
And when these labs, often remote, have power failures, how do the doors lock? They don't.
Are you saying this based on some source or are you just assuming there's no contingency plans because the wikipedia page I linked to doesn't specifically mention them? You appear to be arguing the plan as summarized by wikipedia is inadequate. Definitely. That's why it's not used as the standard (hopefully.)
Standards are great, but as anyone in computers knows, having standards doesn't mean adherence to them. You only need to meet them once every audit. And if the lab is government, the inspectors and lab are funded by the same group, so there''s a conflict of interest. What could possibly go wrong?
So, what is the alternative exactly? Shut it down because something MIGHT go wrong despite all odds? Have a non-government organization either audit or run the labs?