Sure, but the vast majority is done in utero. You are not going to change a person from a thoughtful independent leader into a tea party goon using genetics after birth.
This, in turn is because the EXISTING regulatory regime produced exactly the non-competitive, single-point-of-view, broadcast media oligopoly that this regulation was SUPPOSED to prevent.
Since it didn't work, why bother with it?
Seems a bit like saying "If my diet of single cheeseburgers isn't helping me lose weight, why don't I just start eating double quarter pounders?"
But people are getting their "news" from social media (which apparently includes internet-only news reporting operations) BECAUSE the broadcast news operations are ALREADY untrusted.
I worry about the type of people who do still get their news from broadcast TV. Seems to me that it's mainly moderate boomers. Judging from my father in law, once boomers start sitting in front of Fox News propaganda for hours on end, they veer more and more into Trump territory. Local news isn't great, but it's not Fox.
IF Sinclair buys up broadcast news, they'll turn a good chunk of moderate boomers either off news entirely or into GOP tools.
Obviously there's no link to reality with this security theater. Terrorism isn't a real threat and there's no science to any of these things.
What I don't understand is why bother? Trump has thrown enough red meat to his xenophobic base already. He tried to ban muslims coming into the country and the courts struck it down.
He doesn't even need to DO anything, his base is still convinced he's "draining the swamp," despite doing what can only be described as the exact opposite.
Why doesn't he just SAY "We've decreased the amount of islamic terrorists coming into the country by 120000% since MUSLIM OBAMA" and then go golfing? Everyone wins.
"The best and the brightest" are vastly overrated in science no matter their origin. Without the stars you mentioned, science would have been delayed at most a few years. Most science labs are one head who writes grants and an army of grad students and postdocs doing the actual work.
And, importantly, a great chunk of THOSE workers are foreigners.
My last lab, three of the four postdocs were chinese nationals. The lab before that was me and a Korean national.
If we let in only the best and the brightest, we're still going to be unable to do the grunt work. An army doesn't win a war by just having one Doomguy like soldier, any sports team needs more than just one star. America simply CANNOT maintain it's science superiority (and probably economic or military superiority) without a steady stream of immigrants.
Leftists get a blue check mark taken away from racists. They can still tweet, just without an emoji.
The right wing in control of all levels of our government make sure scientists can't report that climate change is happening because coal companies don't like it.
Clearly this country is being destroyed by leftist fascists...
The problem lies in the fact that the pro-illegal crowd intentionally conflates legal and illegal immigration when trying to paint their opponents as xenophobic, which in turn creates this stupid atmosphere of 'OAMG the administration hatez the dreamers!!!111!!one!!'
He's making moves to deport them by ending DACA, he's appointing officials who want to aggressively deport, makes false statements about crime caused by undocumented immigrants, and wants to bankrupt us building a wall between us and mexico.
On top of that, I mean, I've met Trump supporters. I'm a white dude. They don't exactly play their cards close to their chest on this subject.
You're trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Pretty much how the media worked out and now it'll be on to other things.
Where's the left-wing mainstream media? We have fox news which is right-wing propaganda from a bunch of billionaires. Is George Soros going to launch his own channel?
It caters to that very important demographic who believe corporations are our friends, any government regulation is the enemy, and also give a flying fuck about other countries.
The proper name for that demographic BTW is "Seton Motley and also possibly Ann Coulter?"
Anyway, how applicable is Venezuela to the United States? They also has/had rampant corruption, extremely unequal distribution of wealth, an uninformed electorate, an insane leader... with a cult-like following...
Third, as I said, brain development happens in utero. Changing genetics to rewire the brain of an individual you want to influence is nonsense.
I have no doubt that further studies would reveal specific genes that could be manipulated to entirely change the behavior of a person.
It's an understatement to say it's tough to quantify human behavior (hence the misleading study saying DRD4 is a risk-causing gene), but lets take it for granted you can tell if a person is going to have the desired behavior.
The necessary experiment to prove causation between a gene and a behavior would be to implant a bunch of twins, one with the gene manipulated, one without, and see if that causes the effect.
As it's human behavior, you would need to do it in humans.
These experiments, needless to say, have not been done for that or any other gene. They WILL not be done either for the foreseeable future. Ethics are a major barrier to even developing the tech to manipulate human embryo DNA in utero.
Even if you doubt that's much of a barrier, it's still going to be ruinously expensive to get enough women to give birth to intentionally mutated twins OR cover it all up.
And that's if you have a short list of genes you know correlate to the behavior rather than just stabbing in the vast genome.
In short, yes, experiments COULD theoretically prove genes AFFECT certain behaviors. But that's not going to happen barring a ton of money, time, miraculous technology that is not on the horizon yet, and serious ethical violations by an army of scientists.
There's a reason we're nowhere on curing schizophrenia.
Good point, my doctor said if I didn't stop smoking, i'd die of lung cancer, but lol, I died of emphysema.
Specific predictions are vain attempts to get morons to care. The general prediction that gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have effects we don't like is unambiguously true. That the specific predictions haven't come true is only comfort if you're a fucking moron.
Mod parent up. Biology is just not that simple. The genetics behind most brain DISEASES isn't complicated enough to begin to solve like this. Behavior is exponentially more complex than, say, alzheimers.
There isn't a gene for "be republican" or even "be smart." There are genes that are known to lead to low intelligence, but your'e talking down syndrome level dysfunction.
On top of that, the vast majority of brain development is done in utero.
Suggesting that a dystopian government could simply reprogram a person using crispr is an order of magnitude more ludicrous than saying "Well what if a rogue state hacks the internet and makes all the planes fall out of the sky."
At the very least, a dystopian government even GIVING YOU CANCER with crispr would require millions of dollars in investment.
Rope, tape, a chair, and a baseball bat meanwhile costs maybe $10 if you go to a garage sale and I'm guessing $10k to hire some biker types?
I'm not really fond of politically correct speech, I'm fond of calling stupid behavior "stupid behavior."
Plus I doubt bending over backwards to reach out to rednecks is going to do anything. Progressives have done fuck all against them. We haven't made serious attempts to ban guns or make our votes for president count as much as theirs have. Yet they act like us not wanting to live in buttfuck alabama means we're the bad guy.
Anyone who isn't extreme right gets accused of being liberal by someone on the internet.
I have to ask, what the fuck has google done that is "ACTIVELY left"?
To wit:
- They fired a guy who sent out a foolish memo. Feel free to try to convince me it was because it was a right-wing point of view, and maybe if he had say, said religious people were inherently technology incompetent he would have kept his job. But the fact is he pissed off a good chunk of the company, had a history of similar stupid behavior, and it's not straight up political.
- The founders support left-wing causes as right wing rich people do for the right wing yet you seem to have no problem with?
-They supported Hillary and Bernie over Trump like, you know, every fucking sane person out there.
So seriously, what's left wing about Google? The fact that they don't have mandatory pray to jeebus time? They don't preach the gospel of "Tax cuts = magic?"
Is it as facile as "They're in California?"
as if their opinions are somehow more valid, important, or enlightened than the rest of us.
"The rest of us" being the minority of the population who votes right wing? Look at the right wing right now. Yes, they are more enlightened than you are.
I know. It would be tempting to assign most of the blame for climate change denialism on them, because that would at least be logical. But nope, it's mainly people who just like fossil fuel industries and hate liberals.
The only reason one would have to doubt that climate change denialism is being promoted by foreign adversaries is the same reason one would doubt that our adversaries were trying to convince us Trump would be good: You don't like the implications and are too stupid to realize the damage will happen no matter what you believe.
I'd argue this is more a result of most consumers being so young.
I worked at gamestop about 10 years ago. Kids would bring in their entire collection, would get $10 for 20 games. Well worn copies of good games they obviously loved and had value "I can only give you $2 for this game you've obviously put at least a hundred hours into." They just stood there, either staring at me waiting for me to give them the shiny new game in exchange for their memories or staring directly at the game waiting to play it.
Kids have more money than taste. I was that way when I was buying "Hootie and the blowfish" or "Ace of Base" CDs with my money from mowing the lawn, my parents were like that when they were trading baseball cards. It's just a fact of life that kids make dumb decisions with their purchases.
That it's messing up entertainment for the rest of us isn't even new. Music has been catering to the young and dumb crowd again for generations. See my above musical tastes.
What is new is that gamers are starting to age to a point where we're whining about the good old days, AND have a forum to whine about it collectively.
I don't give a flying fuck what they do or whether they like it or not. Their shitty job is negatively impacting the globe for generations to come.
They can update their skills, or retire, or take opiates and watch soap operas until they die, eat a bullet... it's up to them.
"Continue destabilizing the planet because I like my job" isn't an option I'm willing to let them have. I really don't care about the consequences for them. Climate change isn't something we thought up last year, scientists have been talking about it for the last 40 years at least. Current coal miners knew about it before they bumbled into the profession. Personal responsibility much?
Large parts of them have opposed the easy transition and instead whine about the war on coal and conspiracy theories. They're now facing a hard transition through their own choices. The fact that they're slightly more fucked than the rest of us is at least something to smile about.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but the vast majority is done in utero. You are not going to change a person from a thoughtful independent leader into a tea party goon using genetics after birth.
This, in turn is because the EXISTING regulatory regime produced exactly the non-competitive, single-point-of-view, broadcast media oligopoly that this regulation was SUPPOSED to prevent. Since it didn't work, why bother with it?
Seems a bit like saying "If my diet of single cheeseburgers isn't helping me lose weight, why don't I just start eating double quarter pounders?"
But people are getting their "news" from social media (which apparently includes internet-only news reporting operations) BECAUSE the broadcast news operations are ALREADY untrusted.
I worry about the type of people who do still get their news from broadcast TV. Seems to me that it's mainly moderate boomers. Judging from my father in law, once boomers start sitting in front of Fox News propaganda for hours on end, they veer more and more into Trump territory. Local news isn't great, but it's not Fox.
IF Sinclair buys up broadcast news, they'll turn a good chunk of moderate boomers either off news entirely or into GOP tools.
Obviously there's no link to reality with this security theater. Terrorism isn't a real threat and there's no science to any of these things.
What I don't understand is why bother? Trump has thrown enough red meat to his xenophobic base already. He tried to ban muslims coming into the country and the courts struck it down.
He doesn't even need to DO anything, his base is still convinced he's "draining the swamp," despite doing what can only be described as the exact opposite.
Why doesn't he just SAY "We've decreased the amount of islamic terrorists coming into the country by 120000% since MUSLIM OBAMA" and then go golfing? Everyone wins.
That's nothing! Japanese airlines flying from the US to Japan will go so quick you'll arrive the day before you left!
That's idiotic. I was a grad student. We get paid from taxpayer money, get to work on science that we love, and get a degree out of it.
My only complaint about the system is that more thought needs to be put into how to use the graduates.
I'm steering well clear of partisan bias here (I voted 3rd-party if that tells you anything.)
Insisting both sides are equal, when that is clearly not the case, serves a partisan agenda.
Well... I'm closer to agreeing with that statement now having read it than I did a minute before reading it, for what that's worth.
"The best and the brightest" are vastly overrated in science no matter their origin. Without the stars you mentioned, science would have been delayed at most a few years. Most science labs are one head who writes grants and an army of grad students and postdocs doing the actual work.
And, importantly, a great chunk of THOSE workers are foreigners.
My last lab, three of the four postdocs were chinese nationals. The lab before that was me and a Korean national.
If we let in only the best and the brightest, we're still going to be unable to do the grunt work. An army doesn't win a war by just having one Doomguy like soldier, any sports team needs more than just one star. America simply CANNOT maintain it's science superiority (and probably economic or military superiority) without a steady stream of immigrants.
Leftists get a blue check mark taken away from racists. They can still tweet, just without an emoji.
The right wing in control of all levels of our government make sure scientists can't report that climate change is happening because coal companies don't like it.
Clearly this country is being destroyed by leftist fascists...
The problem lies in the fact that the pro-illegal crowd intentionally conflates legal and illegal immigration when trying to paint their opponents as xenophobic, which in turn creates this stupid atmosphere of 'OAMG the administration hatez the dreamers!!!111!!one!!'
He's making moves to deport them by ending DACA, he's appointing officials who want to aggressively deport, makes false statements about crime caused by undocumented immigrants, and wants to bankrupt us building a wall between us and mexico.
On top of that, I mean, I've met Trump supporters. I'm a white dude. They don't exactly play their cards close to their chest on this subject.
You're trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Pretty much how the media worked out and now it'll be on to other things.
Where's the left-wing mainstream media? We have fox news which is right-wing propaganda from a bunch of billionaires. Is George Soros going to launch his own channel?
The only two ways any of the other news networks can be considered liberal is if you're asking a conservative or if you're comparing it to fox. They couldn't even let people know the basic facts of the Iraq war.
No, the moral of the story is best summed up by XKCD
Wow. "NET NEUTRALITY = WE LIVE IN VENEZUELA" seems to actually be a talking point for far right corporate cheerleaders.
It caters to that very important demographic who believe corporations are our friends, any government regulation is the enemy, and also give a flying fuck about other countries.
The proper name for that demographic BTW is "Seton Motley and also possibly Ann Coulter?"
Anyway, how applicable is Venezuela to the United States? They also has/had rampant corruption, extremely unequal distribution of wealth, an uninformed electorate, an insane leader... with a cult-like following...
uh...
hmm...
Since you have Comcast Plebian, you'll need to pay $5 a month for slashdot mod point access.
Second, the effect is slight.
Third, as I said, brain development happens in utero. Changing genetics to rewire the brain of an individual you want to influence is nonsense.
I have no doubt that further studies would reveal specific genes that could be manipulated to entirely change the behavior of a person.
It's an understatement to say it's tough to quantify human behavior (hence the misleading study saying DRD4 is a risk-causing gene), but lets take it for granted you can tell if a person is going to have the desired behavior.
The necessary experiment to prove causation between a gene and a behavior would be to implant a bunch of twins, one with the gene manipulated, one without, and see if that causes the effect.
As it's human behavior, you would need to do it in humans.
These experiments, needless to say, have not been done for that or any other gene. They WILL not be done either for the foreseeable future. Ethics are a major barrier to even developing the tech to manipulate human embryo DNA in utero.
Even if you doubt that's much of a barrier, it's still going to be ruinously expensive to get enough women to give birth to intentionally mutated twins OR cover it all up.
And that's if you have a short list of genes you know correlate to the behavior rather than just stabbing in the vast genome.
In short, yes, experiments COULD theoretically prove genes AFFECT certain behaviors. But that's not going to happen barring a ton of money, time, miraculous technology that is not on the horizon yet, and serious ethical violations by an army of scientists.
There's a reason we're nowhere on curing schizophrenia.
Good point, my doctor said if I didn't stop smoking, i'd die of lung cancer, but lol, I died of emphysema.
Specific predictions are vain attempts to get morons to care. The general prediction that gigatons of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to have effects we don't like is unambiguously true. That the specific predictions haven't come true is only comfort if you're a fucking moron.
Mod parent up. Biology is just not that simple. The genetics behind most brain DISEASES isn't complicated enough to begin to solve like this. Behavior is exponentially more complex than, say, alzheimers.
There isn't a gene for "be republican" or even "be smart." There are genes that are known to lead to low intelligence, but your'e talking down syndrome level dysfunction.
On top of that, the vast majority of brain development is done in utero.
Suggesting that a dystopian government could simply reprogram a person using crispr is an order of magnitude more ludicrous than saying "Well what if a rogue state hacks the internet and makes all the planes fall out of the sky."
At the very least, a dystopian government even GIVING YOU CANCER with crispr would require millions of dollars in investment.
Rope, tape, a chair, and a baseball bat meanwhile costs maybe $10 if you go to a garage sale and I'm guessing $10k to hire some biker types?
I'm not really fond of politically correct speech, I'm fond of calling stupid behavior "stupid behavior."
Plus I doubt bending over backwards to reach out to rednecks is going to do anything. Progressives have done fuck all against them. We haven't made serious attempts to ban guns or make our votes for president count as much as theirs have. Yet they act like us not wanting to live in buttfuck alabama means we're the bad guy.
"Endear people on the fence?" The warning lights and alarms on that fence have been sounding for a decade. If they're still on the fence, they're fucking morons who deserve to get electrocuted.
I have to ask, what the fuck has google done that is "ACTIVELY left"?
To wit:
- They fired a guy who sent out a foolish memo. Feel free to try to convince me it was because it was a right-wing point of view, and maybe if he had say, said religious people were inherently technology incompetent he would have kept his job. But the fact is he pissed off a good chunk of the company, had a history of similar stupid behavior, and it's not straight up political.
- They acknowledge that unlimited carbon in the atmosphere might mess things up and try to reduce their carbon footprint. Though they're far more interested in money.
- They hire people who are liberal. AKA educated people.
- They support immigration, like all the tech companies do because it's easier to pay immigrants lower wages?
- They give money to a lot of politicians in California where they are which, hey, happens to be democrat. They gave money to republicans too, again, more interested in money than ideology.
- The founders support left-wing causes as right wing rich people do for the right wing yet you seem to have no problem with?
-They supported Hillary and Bernie over Trump like, you know, every fucking sane person out there.
So seriously, what's left wing about Google? The fact that they don't have mandatory pray to jeebus time? They don't preach the gospel of "Tax cuts = magic?"
Is it as facile as "They're in California?"
as if their opinions are somehow more valid, important, or enlightened than the rest of us.
"The rest of us" being the minority of the population who votes right wing? Look at the right wing right now. Yes, they are more enlightened than you are.
I know. It would be tempting to assign most of the blame for climate change denialism on them, because that would at least be logical. But nope, it's mainly people who just like fossil fuel industries and hate liberals.
Russia sells fossil fuels AND more land becomes usable with climate change. Climate change destabilizes the current world order, which is obviously the goal of Russia trying to nudge the US into an isolationist position and countries to withdraw from the EU.
The only reason one would have to doubt that climate change denialism is being promoted by foreign adversaries is the same reason one would doubt that our adversaries were trying to convince us Trump would be good: You don't like the implications and are too stupid to realize the damage will happen no matter what you believe.
I'd argue this is more a result of most consumers being so young.
I worked at gamestop about 10 years ago. Kids would bring in their entire collection, would get $10 for 20 games. Well worn copies of good games they obviously loved and had value "I can only give you $2 for this game you've obviously put at least a hundred hours into." They just stood there, either staring at me waiting for me to give them the shiny new game in exchange for their memories or staring directly at the game waiting to play it.
Kids have more money than taste. I was that way when I was buying "Hootie and the blowfish" or "Ace of Base" CDs with my money from mowing the lawn, my parents were like that when they were trading baseball cards. It's just a fact of life that kids make dumb decisions with their purchases.
That it's messing up entertainment for the rest of us isn't even new. Music has been catering to the young and dumb crowd again for generations. See my above musical tastes.
What is new is that gamers are starting to age to a point where we're whining about the good old days, AND have a forum to whine about it collectively.
Blah blah blah "I'm going to ignore the fact that they chose to have those kids and chose to get a job destroying the planet."
Personal responsibility. Their choices lead to their predicament they're in, my choices did not lead to climate change
That something in the US is the spoiled, coddled, asshole baby boomers took over.
I don't give a flying fuck what they do or whether they like it or not. Their shitty job is negatively impacting the globe for generations to come.
They can update their skills, or retire, or take opiates and watch soap operas until they die, eat a bullet... it's up to them.
"Continue destabilizing the planet because I like my job" isn't an option I'm willing to let them have. I really don't care about the consequences for them. Climate change isn't something we thought up last year, scientists have been talking about it for the last 40 years at least. Current coal miners knew about it before they bumbled into the profession. Personal responsibility much?
Large parts of them have opposed the easy transition and instead whine about the war on coal and conspiracy theories. They're now facing a hard transition through their own choices. The fact that they're slightly more fucked than the rest of us is at least something to smile about.