Nonsense. HIV has 9200 base pairs in its genome. 12 mutations in the recipient aren't likely to completely overlap with 12 mutations the donor contributed.
I'd argue the benefits outweigh the risks with this particular development. If your version of HIV is found spreading, then, yeah, you should probably face some legal consequences. Meanwhile, if there's a politician and voters out to just go gaybashing, they can and do do that already, they don't need to bring complicated things like scientific facts into it.
Collectors who are current collectors, sure, but that's a chicken and egg argument. It's hard to be a collector of cheap 3D printed dinosaur bones when there aren't currently cheap 3d printed dinosaur bones to collect. I would really like a life-sized T-rex skull, but don't have thousands of dollars to waste on the real thing. I'd prefer to spend less than $300 for a full scale model, let alone that much for a quarter scale model.
No, California found ways around the "starve the beast" ideologues (or Norquist fundamentalists, or faux-conservatives, or whatever you want to call them), made cuts in spending, and/or got lucky. Whatever the case, California is actually doing much better budget wise.
I'd suggest it's nature's nature, not specific to humans. Cells that are particularly good at growing and competing do the same thing in organisms. The bright side with those asshole cells is that when the host dies of cancer, the cancer cells die too.
Well, usually anyway. HeLa cells are like those asshole billionaires who ruin a country and then move before the depression ruins them.
I'd suggest that the hundreds of thousands should stop being cynical about their ability to get positive change in washington and should contribute to a coalition that surely already exists instead.
I'd argue that most scientific progress doesn't depend on supercomputers, and anything we know we can use supercomputers for, we can do with current computers, it will just take longer. Aside from the science of making more powerful computers I suppose. Protein folding, for example, could go faster, but it's already going.
This is not to say I don't think we should be content with the computers we have now, just saying it doesn't seem too catastrophic to science. And buisiness seems to make money no matter what. They'll be able to sell people new computers one way or another. "THIS version of the mac book... uh... IS YELLOW!!!!"
How did their attempts to counter scientology's crap go? I remember hearing they blocked all edits from known scientology IP addresses, or something similar, but I remember people here saying that was futile and easily defeated. I'm guessing if there was a simpler way to solve the problem than threatening legal action, they would have done it already, since they've faced this problem before.
Show me a source of information on as many topics as wikipedia that is more accurate.
There are plenty of anecdotes of wikipedia being vandalized or wrong, and that's amusing, but many people mistake that to mean that wiki is bad, which is foolish. Numbers rather than anecdotes are needed for that. Last study I heard, wikipedia was competitive with the professional encyclopedias in terms of accuracy, and had them easily beat in terms of breadth.
A lot of people also seem to assume that because anyone can edit it, it's not as good as professional editors. Which I think is laughable.
I notice you don't mention what you were editing. Was it highly technical, cutting edge research in an area where you are a leading expert? Because if not, then it sort of makes sense. Wiki has been going on for quite a while now. Current events obviously will attract other wikipedians at the same time. Stuff that is not current, wiki has been going on for quite a while, so most edits on those should probably be rejected.
I realize it sounded like I was making an accusation of hypocrisy, and your objection is fair. I should have phrased it more like "Google can't please everyone between too managed and not managed enough." Or maybe said that it's already more managed than some people would like.
I seem to recall there being a lot of outcry when google banned a developer or two from the store. Now you're saying it's barely managed? You realize you can't have it both ways. You can't have it accessible to all (which I think is a major advantage of these virtual stores) AND have it completely free of slime.
It's not just a US phenomenon. You see a lot of patriotism in countries where there's little else to motivate the proles to work hard for their overlords, and respect and obey their superiors besides nationalism. People who have financial security are less likely to cling to "my nation is the best ever!" as a source of pride. They have their own accomplishments to be proud of. And they're less inclined to break their backs for their country while getting nothing in return.
I suspect you underestimate not only canute but also Schumer. I suspect his voting block wants more gun control especially recently, but Schumer realizes that fighting the NRA et al too hard is picking quite a big fight. So to pacify his voters, he attacks the boogeyman of printed guns. Which conveniently the NRA and the gun manufacturing industry also probably hate. So he gets voters demanding gun control AND the gun lobby on his side, it's a win-win. The only losers are, well, everyone who stands to benefit from 3D printers, which will now have another precedent for stupid legislation covering them. If Schumer is REALLY smart, he'll be getting fat checks from more industries who stand to go out of business if 3D printing isn't killed through legislation.
4) If pedophiles are prevented from getting this stuff virtually online, they might turn to doing it themselves and actually molest children.
I have no idea how plausible that hypothesis is, but it might give some of those knee-jerk political reactions a second thought.
Re:What happens when the App crashes?
on
Rigging Up Baby
·
· Score: 1
There's an unfortunate truth that new parents and the makers of expensive baby monitors like to ignore. If your baby goes into cardiac arrest and you're not in a hospital already, then the baby is going to die no matter when you're alerted.
Anyway, those monitors for newborns are supposed to be monitoring against SIDS, and there's evidence that SIDS isn't real anyway. The incidence of SIDS diagnosis is pretty low, and taking such simple steps as nothing in the crib besides the kid, not smoking, and on their backs reduces it to almost unheard of. So I don't think the monitor failing is really that big of a safety issue.
I'm still going to use one of those heartbeat monitors though. I'd lie awake at night and think about how horrible it would be to go in in the morning to find a dead baby. The false alarms from rolling off the sensor are less nerve-racking.
It would be really nice, wouldn't it, if someone getting something wrong the first time meant they couldn't possibly be right about it ever again? I could smoke and eat nothing but steak and eggs. No one would have to worry about the deficit. Life would be so much simpler.
Unfortunately, you and I both know that's not true. The amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere is going to have an effect.
Economy, as I said before, we fuck that up so often and so thouroughly, that why not do it for a good reason for once?
Your point is what exactly? That taxing carbon is as impossible as it is to fly to the moon with your arms? I'm honestly lost. It SOUNDS clever and funny, whatever it is you're trying to communicate, so kudos to that.
Possibly, but silence is more effective than telling lies. Lincoln said "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." People will see through those lies. A lot of people will accept the lies, but they were never going to effectively prune the NSA anyway. The NSA's best shot was saying nothing. Talking keeps the issue alive.
Nope. They blew that strategy, Even the US mainstream media wouldn't fall for it at this date.
I'm honestly a little shocked that you typed those words and appear to be serious. I feel like I'm one of the more optimistic people here, but... man...
You seem to be assuming that because it won't be easy, it shouldn't or can't happen. This is idiotic. Of course there are objections. There are objections and obstacles to every significant change that should happen.
Name one important transition throughout history that occurred smoothly. Hell, ending prohibition on alchohol took some work and that was something everyone should be able to agree to. Look at pot legalization or gay marriage today. It should be clear at this point that the biggest problems with either is that some people will pitch a fit against them. Yet it's taking a long time.
What choice do we have? This isn't a "Will it happen or not" type thing, where it's already done and we may as well keep on going. It can and will get worse. We are going to have to transition away from carbon emissions no matter how much people don't like it.
As for how people "feel" about taxes, so what? I'm not happy with sales taxes of 8 cents. That doesn't mean it's too high. People can grow a fucking brain if they think that paying higher prices at the pump or on their electricity bill is worse than climate change. The economy is arguably terrible at the moment I suppose, but that's because we gave control of the economy to wall street. Separate conversation. The economy will recover if we regulate wall street, and it won't if we don't, completely independent of carbon taxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. HIV has 9200 base pairs in its genome. 12 mutations in the recipient aren't likely to completely overlap with 12 mutations the donor contributed.
I'd argue the benefits outweigh the risks with this particular development. If your version of HIV is found spreading, then, yeah, you should probably face some legal consequences. Meanwhile, if there's a politician and voters out to just go gaybashing, they can and do do that already, they don't need to bring complicated things like scientific facts into it.
Collectors who are current collectors, sure, but that's a chicken and egg argument. It's hard to be a collector of cheap 3D printed dinosaur bones when there aren't currently cheap 3d printed dinosaur bones to collect. I would really like a life-sized T-rex skull, but don't have thousands of dollars to waste on the real thing. I'd prefer to spend less than $300 for a full scale model, let alone that much for a quarter scale model.
No, California found ways around the "starve the beast" ideologues (or Norquist fundamentalists, or faux-conservatives, or whatever you want to call them), made cuts in spending, and/or got lucky. Whatever the case, California is actually doing much better budget wise.
I'd suggest it's nature's nature, not specific to humans. Cells that are particularly good at growing and competing do the same thing in organisms. The bright side with those asshole cells is that when the host dies of cancer, the cancer cells die too.
Well, usually anyway. HeLa cells are like those asshole billionaires who ruin a country and then move before the depression ruins them.
I'd suggest that the hundreds of thousands should stop being cynical about their ability to get positive change in washington and should contribute to a coalition that surely already exists instead.
I'd argue that most scientific progress doesn't depend on supercomputers, and anything we know we can use supercomputers for, we can do with current computers, it will just take longer. Aside from the science of making more powerful computers I suppose. Protein folding, for example, could go faster, but it's already going.
This is not to say I don't think we should be content with the computers we have now, just saying it doesn't seem too catastrophic to science. And buisiness seems to make money no matter what. They'll be able to sell people new computers one way or another. "THIS version of the mac book... uh... IS YELLOW!!!!"
How did their attempts to counter scientology's crap go? I remember hearing they blocked all edits from known scientology IP addresses, or something similar, but I remember people here saying that was futile and easily defeated. I'm guessing if there was a simpler way to solve the problem than threatening legal action, they would have done it already, since they've faced this problem before.
Show me a source of information on as many topics as wikipedia that is more accurate.
There are plenty of anecdotes of wikipedia being vandalized or wrong, and that's amusing, but many people mistake that to mean that wiki is bad, which is foolish. Numbers rather than anecdotes are needed for that. Last study I heard, wikipedia was competitive with the professional encyclopedias in terms of accuracy, and had them easily beat in terms of breadth.
A lot of people also seem to assume that because anyone can edit it, it's not as good as professional editors. Which I think is laughable.
I notice you don't mention what you were editing. Was it highly technical, cutting edge research in an area where you are a leading expert? Because if not, then it sort of makes sense. Wiki has been going on for quite a while now. Current events obviously will attract other wikipedians at the same time. Stuff that is not current, wiki has been going on for quite a while, so most edits on those should probably be rejected.
You're asking "Do I want to creep my friends out after I have died?" A MILLION TIMES YES!!!
Why didn't the dogs die?
Why not shoot anybody and everybody? That way, you'll certainly get all the rapists, murderers, etc.
Goddamnit, no! Don't give them ideas!
I realize it sounded like I was making an accusation of hypocrisy, and your objection is fair. I should have phrased it more like "Google can't please everyone between too managed and not managed enough." Or maybe said that it's already more managed than some people would like.
Coupled with a barely managed market place
I seem to recall there being a lot of outcry when google banned a developer or two from the store. Now you're saying it's barely managed? You realize you can't have it both ways. You can't have it accessible to all (which I think is a major advantage of these virtual stores) AND have it completely free of slime.
Google play is supposed to be the walled garden? Since when? I thought people who wanted to exchange freedom for security were all on itunes.
It's not just a US phenomenon. You see a lot of patriotism in countries where there's little else to motivate the proles to work hard for their overlords, and respect and obey their superiors besides nationalism. People who have financial security are less likely to cling to "my nation is the best ever!" as a source of pride. They have their own accomplishments to be proud of. And they're less inclined to break their backs for their country while getting nothing in return.
I suspect you underestimate not only canute but also Schumer. I suspect his voting block wants more gun control especially recently, but Schumer realizes that fighting the NRA et al too hard is picking quite a big fight. So to pacify his voters, he attacks the boogeyman of printed guns. Which conveniently the NRA and the gun manufacturing industry also probably hate. So he gets voters demanding gun control AND the gun lobby on his side, it's a win-win. The only losers are, well, everyone who stands to benefit from 3D printers, which will now have another precedent for stupid legislation covering them. If Schumer is REALLY smart, he'll be getting fat checks from more industries who stand to go out of business if 3D printing isn't killed through legislation.
4) If pedophiles are prevented from getting this stuff virtually online, they might turn to doing it themselves and actually molest children.
I have no idea how plausible that hypothesis is, but it might give some of those knee-jerk political reactions a second thought.
There's an unfortunate truth that new parents and the makers of expensive baby monitors like to ignore. If your baby goes into cardiac arrest and you're not in a hospital already, then the baby is going to die no matter when you're alerted.
Anyway, those monitors for newborns are supposed to be monitoring against SIDS, and there's evidence that SIDS isn't real anyway. The incidence of SIDS diagnosis is pretty low, and taking such simple steps as nothing in the crib besides the kid, not smoking, and on their backs reduces it to almost unheard of. So I don't think the monitor failing is really that big of a safety issue.
I'm still going to use one of those heartbeat monitors though. I'd lie awake at night and think about how horrible it would be to go in in the morning to find a dead baby. The false alarms from rolling off the sensor are less nerve-racking.
It would be really nice, wouldn't it, if someone getting something wrong the first time meant they couldn't possibly be right about it ever again? I could smoke and eat nothing but steak and eggs. No one would have to worry about the deficit. Life would be so much simpler.
Unfortunately, you and I both know that's not true. The amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere is going to have an effect.
Economy, as I said before, we fuck that up so often and so thouroughly, that why not do it for a good reason for once?
Your point is what exactly? That taxing carbon is as impossible as it is to fly to the moon with your arms? I'm honestly lost. It SOUNDS clever and funny, whatever it is you're trying to communicate, so kudos to that.
Possibly, but silence is more effective than telling lies. Lincoln said "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." People will see through those lies. A lot of people will accept the lies, but they were never going to effectively prune the NSA anyway. The NSA's best shot was saying nothing. Talking keeps the issue alive.
Nope. They blew that strategy, Even the US mainstream media wouldn't fall for it at this date.
I'm honestly a little shocked that you typed those words and appear to be serious. I feel like I'm one of the more optimistic people here, but... man...
You seem to be assuming that because it won't be easy, it shouldn't or can't happen. This is idiotic. Of course there are objections. There are objections and obstacles to every significant change that should happen.
Name one important transition throughout history that occurred smoothly. Hell, ending prohibition on alchohol took some work and that was something everyone should be able to agree to. Look at pot legalization or gay marriage today. It should be clear at this point that the biggest problems with either is that some people will pitch a fit against them. Yet it's taking a long time.
What choice do we have? This isn't a "Will it happen or not" type thing, where it's already done and we may as well keep on going. It can and will get worse. We are going to have to transition away from carbon emissions no matter how much people don't like it.
As for how people "feel" about taxes, so what? I'm not happy with sales taxes of 8 cents. That doesn't mean it's too high. People can grow a fucking brain if they think that paying higher prices at the pump or on their electricity bill is worse than climate change. The economy is arguably terrible at the moment I suppose, but that's because we gave control of the economy to wall street. Separate conversation. The economy will recover if we regulate wall street, and it won't if we don't, completely independent of carbon taxes.