Let's flip this around. Suppose for some reason there is something interesting about my personal genetic profile, and I want my data to be published (for SCIENCE!), but my estranged adult child is trying to have the publication quashed. Does he have a right to choose happens to my personal data?
Legally? I don't know. Ethically? Probably not. Ideally, you all would sit down and act like adults about it. This is getting a bit hypothetical for my tastes, I'm just saying why the Lacks family has a real concrete concern in this specific case.
To add to that: the reason so many studies have used it is because it's a lot cheaper and easier than using "normal" cells. You have to be careful if you're making statements about normal cells to back up your results in normal cells, but as far as basic questions about cell biology, they're definitely "useful." Same rationale as using lab mice: no, they're not perfect comparisons to humans, and no, we're not studying mice to study mice, but it works.
A lot less research could be done if we limited ourselves to using human cells only, due to costs, ease of experiments, and legal/ethical issues.
The privacy concerns are more of a valid issue though. I wouldn't want anyone publishing my parent's genomes, even if they did get my parents' permissions first. Part of that is my genome, so necessarily, part of my DNA would be published with the family name on it.
The 2013 ruling doesn't have much to do with it: the cells were obtained in 1951.
Henrietta’s family did not learn of her “immortality” until more than twenty years after her death, when scientists investigating HeLa began using her husband and children in research without informed consent. And though the cells had launched a multimillion-dollar industry that sells human biological materials, her family never saw any of the profits.
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
I don't remember exactly, but I think getting treated at the hospital meant signing something similar to a EULA that said the hospital gets all rights to anything it wants and you get cured if you're lucky. Informed consent wasn't much of a concept at the time if I remember the book correctly. No one mentioned they were going to try to grow her cells in a dish. To be fair, that hadn't ever worked before, and the original intent wasn't "sell the cells around the world for a profit."
Without seeing the movie, I'd wager it would be easier to constantly exploit the subhumans on the planet surface than it was to exploit colonies via ships that took months to get there. If the rich want to stay rich in outer space, they'd need to find a way to continue to profit off of the surface dwellers.
I think a closer analogy would be Africa: went from colonial exploitation to neocolonial exploitation. Still far behind the regions which exploited/exploit it as a result.
The above post was a lie. I was lying. I'm going to spend the next few years vacationing now in some place that doesn't have the internet, so you probably won't hear from me.
All praise the NSA, benevolent defenders of freedom.
I'd rather we didn't stoop to his level, but if insults about sexuality are what will win or lose the fight against government surveillance, sure. I've heard things about certain NSA chiefs who torture dogs while masturbating. I don't believe those rumors personally, but I'm just saying, Hayden has yet to say publically he DOESN'T fuck puppies to death.
You have to give him credit: it's a brilliant play. Insult script kiddies who see themselves as cyber activists, to get them to do their worst if and when the US arrests snowden for the crime of defending the constitution. When they finally do get him, they'll be able to shift the news story to the "cyberattacks" rather than "We've heard screams coming from the holding cell where Snowden is being held. Can you tell us you are not torturing him for exposing your crimes?"
That the "cyberattacks" will be the equivalent of someone spraying "Fuck U!" on a billboard for the NSA won't matter. Citizens will get the message that the NSA is your first and only defense against an unholy cabal of virgin"cyberterrorists" who would hack your toaster to murder your spouse and are probably gay or something, child pornography rapists who will come for your kids, and Edward Snowden who evidently murdered US troops or something.
In order to keep defending you against such evil people, they're going to need you to install a camera in your living room, and you'll need a license to go on the internet on your state-approved computer.
(I'll admit I got carried away with this hyperbole...)
Either you missed my point or you don't understand what the "race card" is. Playing the race card means exploiting accusations of being racist. I wasn't trying to exploit anything, just explain American politics. And I'm not calling anyone racist for being opposed to obamacare.
I've heard that countries with a more homogenous demographic spend more on social welfare programs, while citizens in countries with diversity are more stingy with what they want their taxes spent on. And of course the spy programs are supposed to defend us against non-european foreigners.
It's us vs them in the minds of many voters. "You don't look like me, so you must be bad in some way. You're out to bomb me or you want a check from the government to spend on drugs. Either way, I want my tax dollars to protect me from you, not help you."
To me, that's the most depressing thing about American politics, and the only way I can think it will change is to wait until most of the current citizens die out and hope subsequent generations are smarter than that.
When a normal hard drive fails, you can take it apart and throw the discs like a Frisbee. You can't do that with an SSD. Well, you can, but it doesn't go as far.
"Ghost Shark: it's a shark that's a ghost. Need anything else?" SyFy, hinting that you're aware you're making disgracefully shitty entertainment doesn't mean it's not disgracefully shitty. In fact, it just makes it worse.
But knowing it's flipped could be useful. For one thing, if you find yourself on the surface of the sun, you now know that you'll need to read your compass backwards.
Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?
Sure. Just tell me where the line is and why it isn't a completely arbitrary line. Because I think religion is just an extension of the tendency most people have to be convinced of things without sufficient proof. It seems to me that the things we call religion are just "I REALLLLLY think this, and other people do too, and no I can't prove it."
Then tell me why the benefits that state-approved religions should be exclusive to big organized religions that have been around for a long time. Seems to me that a religion of file-sharing has a cleaner slate than, say, a religion which has endorsed killing people because they're the wrong religion.
I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there: if Russia replaced all it's orthodox gay-hating citizens with citizens who liked sharing MP3s, Russia would substantially improve in a lot of ways. Furthermore, Russia should be encouraging kopism with tax incentives, since a marketplace of ideas contributes to society, and discouraging useless beliefs which have historically done little besides get countries into pointless wars and divided society.
The orthodox church should be looked upon as a hazard, if not a dangerous cult, while kopism should be looked on as a religion.
You might be interested in the religion of "word meanings should never change-ism"
Honestly, I think it's about staying on top of the fear machine they've created. If you make the public think child porn or terrorism is the worst thing ever in order to get elected, you need to take steps against it. Otherwise someone else will come along and exploit the paranoia you worked so hard to make, and you'll get voted out.
No, the best is the third one over, with the ponytail. It's for feminine hygine. Or, if you're a guy, for spraying water on your testicles. The more you know.
The really freaky part is the seat warmer if you're not expecting it. "Oh god! The one obese person in Japan just got off this seat just a few seconds ago!"
The fact that no one appears to have made a ceramic blade, including luxury straight razor blades which sell for hundreds of dollars, to me indicates that there are some other factors going into that as well.
Politics 102 is "If you object to something for some reason, be sure to mention other possible reasons to object to it, on the off chance that someone who doesn't care about your reason will care about the other reason."
Perhaps there are a number of Russian citizens who are opposed to the censorship, but are too apathetic to protest against it. Maybe there are Russian citizens who tell themselves that it will be okay, they'll probably only use it against bad guys. Perhaps censorship AND lack of any pretense of oversight will be a bridge too far. It's more difficult to pretend the government won't abuse it's power if there isn't any oversight. Maybe it will push them to oppose it, and that will be critical mass to defeat the motion.
Doesn't seem likely, but considering that little is risked by making an issue of the lack of court order, it's worth mentioning it anyway.
I took another lesson away from the game that is probably much more useful:
Under absolutely no circumstances should you ever try to walk or drive across a river. You'll tip over and Zeke will drown. Somehow an Indian will help you though.
I didn't see underwear model and rapper Marky Mark pulling off a serious acting career. Maybe assume that the people in charge of casting know a little bit more about whether he can act than you do.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's flip this around. Suppose for some reason there is something interesting about my personal genetic profile, and I want my data to be published (for SCIENCE!), but my estranged adult child is trying to have the publication quashed. Does he have a right to choose happens to my personal data?
Legally? I don't know. Ethically? Probably not. Ideally, you all would sit down and act like adults about it. This is getting a bit hypothetical for my tastes, I'm just saying why the Lacks family has a real concrete concern in this specific case.
To add to that: the reason so many studies have used it is because it's a lot cheaper and easier than using "normal" cells. You have to be careful if you're making statements about normal cells to back up your results in normal cells, but as far as basic questions about cell biology, they're definitely "useful." Same rationale as using lab mice: no, they're not perfect comparisons to humans, and no, we're not studying mice to study mice, but it works. A lot less research could be done if we limited ourselves to using human cells only, due to costs, ease of experiments, and legal/ethical issues.
HeLa cells reproduce like crazy and even have taken over other cell lines through contamination. Perhaps this story was originally about linux or something, but HeLa got in there and now it's a HeLa story.
Okay, that's my one cell biology joke for the day. I apologize.
The privacy concerns are more of a valid issue though. I wouldn't want anyone publishing my parent's genomes, even if they did get my parents' permissions first. Part of that is my genome, so necessarily, part of my DNA would be published with the family name on it.
Henrietta’s family did not learn of her “immortality” until more than twenty years after her death, when scientists investigating HeLa began using her husband and children in research without informed consent. And though the cells had launched a multimillion-dollar industry that sells human biological materials, her family never saw any of the profits.
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.
I don't remember exactly, but I think getting treated at the hospital meant signing something similar to a EULA that said the hospital gets all rights to anything it wants and you get cured if you're lucky. Informed consent wasn't much of a concept at the time if I remember the book correctly. No one mentioned they were going to try to grow her cells in a dish. To be fair, that hadn't ever worked before, and the original intent wasn't "sell the cells around the world for a profit."
Without seeing the movie, I'd wager it would be easier to constantly exploit the subhumans on the planet surface than it was to exploit colonies via ships that took months to get there. If the rich want to stay rich in outer space, they'd need to find a way to continue to profit off of the surface dwellers.
I think a closer analogy would be Africa: went from colonial exploitation to neocolonial exploitation. Still far behind the regions which exploited/exploit it as a result.
The above post was a lie. I was lying. I'm going to spend the next few years vacationing now in some place that doesn't have the internet, so you probably won't hear from me.
All praise the NSA, benevolent defenders of freedom.
Sincerely,
Little Girl
I'd rather we didn't stoop to his level, but if insults about sexuality are what will win or lose the fight against government surveillance, sure. I've heard things about certain NSA chiefs who torture dogs while masturbating. I don't believe those rumors personally, but I'm just saying, Hayden has yet to say publically he DOESN'T fuck puppies to death.
You have to give him credit: it's a brilliant play. Insult script kiddies who see themselves as cyber activists, to get them to do their worst if and when the US arrests snowden for the crime of defending the constitution. When they finally do get him, they'll be able to shift the news story to the "cyberattacks" rather than "We've heard screams coming from the holding cell where Snowden is being held. Can you tell us you are not torturing him for exposing your crimes?"
That the "cyberattacks" will be the equivalent of someone spraying "Fuck U!" on a billboard for the NSA won't matter. Citizens will get the message that the NSA is your first and only defense against an unholy cabal of virgin"cyberterrorists" who would hack your toaster to murder your spouse and are probably gay or something, child pornography rapists who will come for your kids, and Edward Snowden who evidently murdered US troops or something.
In order to keep defending you against such evil people, they're going to need you to install a camera in your living room, and you'll need a license to go on the internet on your state-approved computer.
(I'll admit I got carried away with this hyperbole...)
Either you missed my point or you don't understand what the "race card" is. Playing the race card means exploiting accusations of being racist. I wasn't trying to exploit anything, just explain American politics. And I'm not calling anyone racist for being opposed to obamacare.
I've heard that countries with a more homogenous demographic spend more on social welfare programs, while citizens in countries with diversity are more stingy with what they want their taxes spent on. And of course the spy programs are supposed to defend us against non-european foreigners.
It's us vs them in the minds of many voters. "You don't look like me, so you must be bad in some way. You're out to bomb me or you want a check from the government to spend on drugs. Either way, I want my tax dollars to protect me from you, not help you."
To me, that's the most depressing thing about American politics, and the only way I can think it will change is to wait until most of the current citizens die out and hope subsequent generations are smarter than that.
When a normal hard drive fails, you can take it apart and throw the discs like a Frisbee. You can't do that with an SSD. Well, you can, but it doesn't go as far.
Looking at their original movies, it appears that SyFy is the disaster.
"Ghost Shark: it's a shark that's a ghost. Need anything else?" SyFy, hinting that you're aware you're making disgracefully shitty entertainment doesn't mean it's not disgracefully shitty. In fact, it just makes it worse.
But knowing it's flipped could be useful. For one thing, if you find yourself on the surface of the sun, you now know that you'll need to read your compass backwards.
I'm pretty sure you flip them upside-down, convert to metric, and replace any beer in the fridge with fosters.
Can we stop deliberately confusing "stuff I believe" with "religion"?
Sure. Just tell me where the line is and why it isn't a completely arbitrary line. Because I think religion is just an extension of the tendency most people have to be convinced of things without sufficient proof. It seems to me that the things we call religion are just "I REALLLLLY think this, and other people do too, and no I can't prove it."
Then tell me why the benefits that state-approved religions should be exclusive to big organized religions that have been around for a long time. Seems to me that a religion of file-sharing has a cleaner slate than, say, a religion which has endorsed killing people because they're the wrong religion.
I'm going to go ahead and throw this out there: if Russia replaced all it's orthodox gay-hating citizens with citizens who liked sharing MP3s, Russia would substantially improve in a lot of ways. Furthermore, Russia should be encouraging kopism with tax incentives, since a marketplace of ideas contributes to society, and discouraging useless beliefs which have historically done little besides get countries into pointless wars and divided society.
The orthodox church should be looked upon as a hazard, if not a dangerous cult, while kopism should be looked on as a religion.
You might be interested in the religion of "word meanings should never change-ism"
Honestly, I think it's about staying on top of the fear machine they've created. If you make the public think child porn or terrorism is the worst thing ever in order to get elected, you need to take steps against it. Otherwise someone else will come along and exploit the paranoia you worked so hard to make, and you'll get voted out.
No, the best is the third one over, with the ponytail. It's for feminine hygine. Or, if you're a guy, for spraying water on your testicles. The more you know.
The really freaky part is the seat warmer if you're not expecting it. "Oh god! The one obese person in Japan just got off this seat just a few seconds ago!"
A test tube baby wouldn't be very much meat. More interesting question is "will silly people ban the eating of lab-grown meat of human origin."
With IPSC you could take a skin patch, wait a month or two, then get enough of meat derived from you to eat.
Hey, if you were a hot dog, and you were starving, would you eat yourself? Because I sure as hell will. I'll be so delicious.
And no, I won't be doing it just to quote that SNL sketch.
The fact that no one appears to have made a ceramic blade, including luxury straight razor blades which sell for hundreds of dollars, to me indicates that there are some other factors going into that as well.
Politics 102 is "If you object to something for some reason, be sure to mention other possible reasons to object to it, on the off chance that someone who doesn't care about your reason will care about the other reason."
Perhaps there are a number of Russian citizens who are opposed to the censorship, but are too apathetic to protest against it. Maybe there are Russian citizens who tell themselves that it will be okay, they'll probably only use it against bad guys. Perhaps censorship AND lack of any pretense of oversight will be a bridge too far. It's more difficult to pretend the government won't abuse it's power if there isn't any oversight. Maybe it will push them to oppose it, and that will be critical mass to defeat the motion.
Doesn't seem likely, but considering that little is risked by making an issue of the lack of court order, it's worth mentioning it anyway.
I took another lesson away from the game that is probably much more useful:
Under absolutely no circumstances should you ever try to walk or drive across a river. You'll tip over and Zeke will drown. Somehow an Indian will help you though.
Let X = an actor or actress you think is decent at acting.
"I wouldn't have thought X could do (insert good movie X was in, not his/her first acting job) after (insert first acting job here)"
I didn't see underwear model and rapper Marky Mark pulling off a serious acting career. Maybe assume that the people in charge of casting know a little bit more about whether he can act than you do.
How the hell do you blame the far left and not the fossil fuel industry, NIMBYs, etc?