Just have to point out, that the jellyfish protein they're talking about is green fluorescent protein (GFP). It fluoresces. This is not glow in the dark. You shine a blue light on GFP, it sends some of it back as green light. The only way it "glows" is if you filter out the blue excitation light you're shining on it. The light shining on the rabbits is actually quite intense compared to the fluorescent light you get back.
At 0:48, they switch from a normal view of the bunnies to a the fluorescence. The reason it's a cut and not just flipping off the lights is that they put a green filter over the camera and set up a bright blue light shining on the bunnies. The green filter filters out the blue light but not the green light from the rabbits. You can see the one rabbit dims for a split second, that's because the beam of blue excitation light moves for a second. Turn off the blue light and those rabbits would go dark along with everything else. I suppose they'd glow for a very short time longer than anything else due to the fluorescence taking slightly longer, but it would be far too fast for you to perceive.
Here's an example of some GFP sample on the microscope. Notice the bright blue light? That's what the article is calling "dark." (The orange filter in that example isn't the one you'd use to see fluorescence, it's what you'd use to keep you from blinding yourself by the blue light while moving the sample around.)
Either the government regulates money for various reasons (crime, abuse, economic stability) or it doesn't.
I don't know anything about the economy or bitcoins, but I do know that nothing is as black and white as you're painting it. There's plenty of room between "your papers, comrade" and the current "We can't possibly tell big banks what to do! Lets just pray they don't intentionally break the economy again!"
Yeah, how misleading that they only mentioned that HALFWAY THROUGH THE SUMMARY!
Sarcasm aside, what's your point? Do you imagine that the human brain behaves much differently during death than rat brains? We like to think of ourselves as being very different from "lower vertebrates," but our neurons themselves are pretty similar from what we can tell. Take oxygen away from a human neuron and a mouse neuron, and I'll bet they both do about the same things. It's not like we faced a lot of evolutionary pressure to have different thoughts during death than rats.
There are primaries which do have an effect in practice every election. I don't understand why everyone thinks voting third party in the general election makes sense, but voting in the primaries is a waste of time. If Ron Paul or whoever can get elected in a third party, he can get elected in one of the two major parties. If a candidate can't secure a primary nomination, then that doesn't speak well for their ability to win a general election or get much accomplished as president.
It's just you. The kinect is going to be bundled. Developers know everyone will have it and can turn it on if they feel like it.
If you're trying to decide whether to make kinect part of your game, whether or not everyone has it does matter. Whether they have it on does not. If you have a game idea that requires it, make them turn it on. Better yet, make it optional if it's actually something that the game benefits from.
The always on thing seemed like it was just for MS's benefit. So you could limit the number of people watching digital media, a very intrusive form of DRM. And MS was probably hoping that by making it required, everyone would get used to it and want it instead of a PS4 or wii.
Whatever the motivation, it was idiotic, and I don't see how it affects developers.
That was a very eloquent defense of ads. I'm sure there were more eloquent defenses of the horse and buggy industry a century ago. We certainly lost some things by transitioning to cars. The climate change for one, a faster pace, more deaths due to accidents...
Trying to shame people into viewing ads is going to change a few people's minds, but it's still a dead industry. The changes may not be good, but they're still going to happen.
Heavy weapons can be a sort of domestic mutually assured destruction though. In Libya and Syria, it seems that the leaders used them to try to stave off a rebellion, and that may have delayed the inevitable. Added bonus: if you have that much of a disdain for the people you rule, taking as many of the peasants with you can be attractive.
In a civilized society, we take steps to prevent our fellow citizens from dying preventable deaths.
In a free society, we allow people to make their own choices to a degree.
If you have freedom and civilization, you will be paying a small part of the price for your fellow citizen's twinkies. That's just how it is. There are still incentives to stay healthy, namely that you don't feel and look like shit and have parts cut off of you, so don't worry that everyone is going to get obese and make you pay for it.
Reminds me of "climategate" where the pundits gleefully reported that researchers admitted to using a "trick" to "hide" something. Of course, if you read more than those two words, you realized it wasn't anything shady. Nonetheless, the fossil fuel PR team had great fun with it and some idiots out there took it as reason to ignore climate change for longer.
That's only western variety antivax movement though. There are other reasons some people worldwide might be opposed to it. For instance, the good old CIA using it. If people are paranoid about the doctors giving the shot, it's going to have problems. Witness the paranoia about HIV treatments. That IS happening to some degree in Africa.
Pretty sure diseases mutating around the vaccine is usually a bigger problem, albeit a less infuriating one. We know the diseases lack nervous systems, the parents we expect DO have brain cells.
Look. Read my original post. I wouldn't want... I don't know what you're arguing for. "I would be completely overjoyed that people could have a good clue as to my genomic sequences without a warrant." Is that what you're wanting?
I'm not making an argument about whose permissions one should need in order to publish genomes. Just that the Lacks' could have had reasons for not wanting this to be free for anyone to peruse.
The human genome has already been published, so no obviously. But that's anonymous. HeLa cells are well known and publicly identified to be of a specific family.
No I don't, that's a strawman argument. Maybe that's the legal argument one would take if they for some reason wanted to go to court, but that wouldn't be my intent even if I WERE the family in question. I'm just saying I wouldn't want DNA sequences that could tell people private information about me to be public.
I think it's a bigger problem than you're giving it credit. For one thing, the people who are outraged are a small subset of voters. A much much bigger subset of voters that very minimally overlaps with that first subset are people who are paranoid. Paranoia always buys more votes than outrage at the government.
That's also why it has little to do with independent candidates, in my opinion. People who vote for third party candidates are another small subset, maybe significantly overlapping with the outraged subset. In the event that the outraged group gets big enough to outweigh the paranoids, it won't matter third party or not, political parties want to win the next election more than they want to keep the government spying on you.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way to make the paranoids grow a fucking brain and spinal cord. So maybe the best strategy would be to use paranoia against the government spy program. We need an updated version of 1984 maybe.
Isn't it possible that rather than trying to get information currently on the service, the government was demanding the power to snoop in on any future e-mail coming through lavabit without telling the current customers? Seems like the current action would be more appropriate for that.
We're referencing XKCD rather than saying "First psot" now or, god forbid, anything insightful about the government forcing e-mail to be insecure?... So it has come to this.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope Manning hasn't suffered so much abuse that he actually believes he was wrong and that the "proper authority" is unquestionably correct.
Just have to point out, that the jellyfish protein they're talking about is green fluorescent protein (GFP). It fluoresces. This is not glow in the dark. You shine a blue light on GFP, it sends some of it back as green light. The only way it "glows" is if you filter out the blue excitation light you're shining on it. The light shining on the rabbits is actually quite intense compared to the fluorescent light you get back.
At 0:48, they switch from a normal view of the bunnies to a the fluorescence. The reason it's a cut and not just flipping off the lights is that they put a green filter over the camera and set up a bright blue light shining on the bunnies. The green filter filters out the blue light but not the green light from the rabbits. You can see the one rabbit dims for a split second, that's because the beam of blue excitation light moves for a second. Turn off the blue light and those rabbits would go dark along with everything else. I suppose they'd glow for a very short time longer than anything else due to the fluorescence taking slightly longer, but it would be far too fast for you to perceive.
Here's an example of some GFP sample on the microscope. Notice the bright blue light? That's what the article is calling "dark." (The orange filter in that example isn't the one you'd use to see fluorescence, it's what you'd use to keep you from blinding yourself by the blue light while moving the sample around.)
Either the government regulates money for various reasons (crime, abuse, economic stability) or it doesn't.
I don't know anything about the economy or bitcoins, but I do know that nothing is as black and white as you're painting it. There's plenty of room between "your papers, comrade" and the current "We can't possibly tell big banks what to do! Lets just pray they don't intentionally break the economy again!"
Yeah, how misleading that they only mentioned that HALFWAY THROUGH THE SUMMARY!
Sarcasm aside, what's your point? Do you imagine that the human brain behaves much differently during death than rat brains? We like to think of ourselves as being very different from "lower vertebrates," but our neurons themselves are pretty similar from what we can tell. Take oxygen away from a human neuron and a mouse neuron, and I'll bet they both do about the same things. It's not like we faced a lot of evolutionary pressure to have different thoughts during death than rats.
There are primaries which do have an effect in practice every election. I don't understand why everyone thinks voting third party in the general election makes sense, but voting in the primaries is a waste of time. If Ron Paul or whoever can get elected in a third party, he can get elected in one of the two major parties. If a candidate can't secure a primary nomination, then that doesn't speak well for their ability to win a general election or get much accomplished as president.
It's just you. The kinect is going to be bundled. Developers know everyone will have it and can turn it on if they feel like it.
If you're trying to decide whether to make kinect part of your game, whether or not everyone has it does matter. Whether they have it on does not. If you have a game idea that requires it, make them turn it on. Better yet, make it optional if it's actually something that the game benefits from.
The always on thing seemed like it was just for MS's benefit. So you could limit the number of people watching digital media, a very intrusive form of DRM. And MS was probably hoping that by making it required, everyone would get used to it and want it instead of a PS4 or wii.
Whatever the motivation, it was idiotic, and I don't see how it affects developers.
You aren't very good at trolling. Maybe you should give it up.
That was a very eloquent defense of ads. I'm sure there were more eloquent defenses of the horse and buggy industry a century ago. We certainly lost some things by transitioning to cars. The climate change for one, a faster pace, more deaths due to accidents...
Trying to shame people into viewing ads is going to change a few people's minds, but it's still a dead industry. The changes may not be good, but they're still going to happen.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. You can cyber-computer-terrorist-hack a blindfold to PERMANENTLY MAKE EVERY LIGHT IN THE UNIVERSE BLACKOUT*!
(*For one person. Provided they don't remove the blindfold from their eyes.)
Heavy weapons can be a sort of domestic mutually assured destruction though. In Libya and Syria, it seems that the leaders used them to try to stave off a rebellion, and that may have delayed the inevitable. Added bonus: if you have that much of a disdain for the people you rule, taking as many of the peasants with you can be attractive.
In a civilized society, we take steps to prevent our fellow citizens from dying preventable deaths.
In a free society, we allow people to make their own choices to a degree.
If you have freedom and civilization, you will be paying a small part of the price for your fellow citizen's twinkies. That's just how it is. There are still incentives to stay healthy, namely that you don't feel and look like shit and have parts cut off of you, so don't worry that everyone is going to get obese and make you pay for it.
Reminds me of "climategate" where the pundits gleefully reported that researchers admitted to using a "trick" to "hide" something. Of course, if you read more than those two words, you realized it wasn't anything shady. Nonetheless, the fossil fuel PR team had great fun with it and some idiots out there took it as reason to ignore climate change for longer.
Drug deals, illegal porn, some endangered species poaching, human hunting, but most of it is paranoid nerds talking about bitcoins.
I mean... uh... I have no idea. I don't work for the NSA. I'd have to tell you if I did, and I don't.
That's only western variety antivax movement though. There are other reasons some people worldwide might be opposed to it. For instance, the good old CIA using it. If people are paranoid about the doctors giving the shot, it's going to have problems. Witness the paranoia about HIV treatments. That IS happening to some degree in Africa.
Pretty sure diseases mutating around the vaccine is usually a bigger problem, albeit a less infuriating one. We know the diseases lack nervous systems, the parents we expect DO have brain cells.
In capitalist America, employer IS government!
Look. Read my original post. I wouldn't want... I don't know what you're arguing for. "I would be completely overjoyed that people could have a good clue as to my genomic sequences without a warrant." Is that what you're wanting?
I'm not making an argument about whose permissions one should need in order to publish genomes. Just that the Lacks' could have had reasons for not wanting this to be free for anyone to peruse.
He said "right way to do it" not "the way I bet we will do it very soon."
The human genome has already been published, so no obviously. But that's anonymous. HeLa cells are well known and publicly identified to be of a specific family.
No I don't, that's a strawman argument. Maybe that's the legal argument one would take if they for some reason wanted to go to court, but that wouldn't be my intent even if I WERE the family in question. I'm just saying I wouldn't want DNA sequences that could tell people private information about me to be public.
I was quoting "Talladega Nights," but... uh...
I think it's a bigger problem than you're giving it credit. For one thing, the people who are outraged are a small subset of voters. A much much bigger subset of voters that very minimally overlaps with that first subset are people who are paranoid. Paranoia always buys more votes than outrage at the government.
That's also why it has little to do with independent candidates, in my opinion. People who vote for third party candidates are another small subset, maybe significantly overlapping with the outraged subset. In the event that the outraged group gets big enough to outweigh the paranoids, it won't matter third party or not, political parties want to win the next election more than they want to keep the government spying on you.
Unfortunately, I don't see a way to make the paranoids grow a fucking brain and spinal cord. So maybe the best strategy would be to use paranoia against the government spy program. We need an updated version of 1984 maybe.
Isn't it possible that rather than trying to get information currently on the service, the government was demanding the power to snoop in on any future e-mail coming through lavabit without telling the current customers? Seems like the current action would be more appropriate for that.
We also came up with the missionary position.
You're welcome.
We're referencing XKCD rather than saying "First psot" now or, god forbid, anything insightful about the government forcing e-mail to be insecure?... So it has come to this.