Find me a kid that wants to get shots. Of course they're going to be against it. But yeah, it's sad this very dangerous idea is still floating around, all because somebody wanted to get money from an alternative vaccine and thus fabricated a lie.
There was no anonymity or general audience in the original - and supposedly professional - channel of communication between the scientist and the latter's website representative. Just because something happens over the internet as opposed to IRL doesn't magically make it alright or unimportant.
Or maybe some people just wanted to do some cool fucking research. Everything isn't about the damn NSA and spying - and I know this is hard to swallow - but some people like engineering cool gadgets, solving new puzzles, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge and technology.
Evolutionarily speaking, that is incorrect. Socially speaking, that is incorrect. Genes affecting life expectancy are under selective pressures just as anything else. For organisms of our metabolism and size, we have unusually high life expectancies (wrt to genes). It is reasonable to think that there are selective pressures that have pushed to increase our ability to live and function well beyond our peak fertility. One very plausible explanation very specific to humans is that we are extremely good at teaching skills, leading and acting on accumulated experiences, and communicating to newer generations. This leads to improvement to the survival outcome of newer generations, and more importantly, genetic descendants.
Now to the social side of things, on average people are economically productive well throughout their lives. In fact, their productivity tends to increase for quite a while as they become more experienced with their occupation. This varies from occupation to occupation, but the overall trend is there. Especially in roles involving leadership.
No. Because medical conditions (specifically heart disease) are by far the leading cause of mortality in the US. They also have a very heavy impact on the economy evident by the fact that the healthcare industry is so enormous to accommodate them.
That America can also informally refer to the USA is from historical precedent, not out of ignorance. Historical precedent in part related to Europeans dicking everybody around in the past few centuries (not that we weren't).
And I'm not necessarily saying it's good for the students.
The point that you and the moderator missed is not that the students are better for it; it's that it's an indicator of how bad the company manages it's human resources. And since the students are temporarily working while getting degrees to make them competitive, and yet this is how they're treated, then this is only the tip of the ice berg for the poor folks stuck to the company in the long run.
You know, as much as it sucks and is a screw over, the students still likely have much better prospects than the non-student workers at foxconn. And I'm not necessarily saying it's good for the students.
Just because a question is generic, doesn't mean it's a bad question. Maybe Craddock has an unexpected answer, maybe he doesn't. But until we know, don't attack the questioneer.
So we punish scientists for the actions and policies enacted by politicians and businessmen? The scientists and students are not the ones responsible, in fact it's a generally accepted trend that they tend to be more liberal and open minded than the aggressive pricks in charge (in any country). You can flip that argument right around on us too.
No, genomics is the study of genomes; IOW it is a subbranch on genetics that focuses on many-gene interactions, pathways, etc. As opposed to analyzing individual or a few genes in 'isolation'.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I would respond if I wanted to follow mobile goal posts. But that's not my cup of tea.
Who's this GP you speak of?
Find me a kid that wants to get shots. Of course they're going to be against it. But yeah, it's sad this very dangerous idea is still floating around, all because somebody wanted to get money from an alternative vaccine and thus fabricated a lie.
No, it's not like. SA has blogs for public discourse about matters important to the community; it is not a restaurant. Your analogy is disingenuous.
So the laws of supply and demand don't hold here?
There was no anonymity or general audience in the original - and supposedly professional - channel of communication between the scientist and the latter's website representative. Just because something happens over the internet as opposed to IRL doesn't magically make it alright or unimportant.
Or maybe some people just wanted to do some cool fucking research. Everything isn't about the damn NSA and spying - and I know this is hard to swallow - but some people like engineering cool gadgets, solving new puzzles, and pushing the boundaries of knowledge and technology.
Evolutionarily speaking, that is incorrect. Socially speaking, that is incorrect. Genes affecting life expectancy are under selective pressures just as anything else. For organisms of our metabolism and size, we have unusually high life expectancies (wrt to genes). It is reasonable to think that there are selective pressures that have pushed to increase our ability to live and function well beyond our peak fertility. One very plausible explanation very specific to humans is that we are extremely good at teaching skills, leading and acting on accumulated experiences, and communicating to newer generations. This leads to improvement to the survival outcome of newer generations, and more importantly, genetic descendants.
Now to the social side of things, on average people are economically productive well throughout their lives. In fact, their productivity tends to increase for quite a while as they become more experienced with their occupation. This varies from occupation to occupation, but the overall trend is there. Especially in roles involving leadership.
No. Because medical conditions (specifically heart disease) are by far the leading cause of mortality in the US. They also have a very heavy impact on the economy evident by the fact that the healthcare industry is so enormous to accommodate them.
My home phone is the remnant of a massive dying star, spinning rapidly and emitting its radio signals deep into the universe.
But which one is which?
That America can also informally refer to the USA is from historical precedent, not out of ignorance. Historical precedent in part related to Europeans dicking everybody around in the past few centuries (not that we weren't).
Like the Manhattan project?
And I'm not necessarily saying it's good for the students.
The point that you and the moderator missed is not that the students are better for it; it's that it's an indicator of how bad the company manages it's human resources. And since the students are temporarily working while getting degrees to make them competitive, and yet this is how they're treated, then this is only the tip of the ice berg for the poor folks stuck to the company in the long run.
You know, as much as it sucks and is a screw over, the students still likely have much better prospects than the non-student workers at foxconn. And I'm not necessarily saying it's good for the students.
Not all geeks and tinkers are anti-social.
Just because a question is generic, doesn't mean it's a bad question. Maybe Craddock has an unexpected answer, maybe he doesn't. But until we know, don't attack the questioneer.
It's the metric version of the dollar.
So we punish scientists for the actions and policies enacted by politicians and businessmen? The scientists and students are not the ones responsible, in fact it's a generally accepted trend that they tend to be more liberal and open minded than the aggressive pricks in charge (in any country). You can flip that argument right around on us too.
If an alien were to judge us based on slashdot, they'd strike immediately no matter what. :P
No, genomics is the study of genomes; IOW it is a subbranch on genetics that focuses on many-gene interactions, pathways, etc. As opposed to analyzing individual or a few genes in 'isolation'.
That sounds dangerously close to unwarranted entitlement of posting to whatever website.
There are other more traditional ways to resolve this built in to the scientific community.
Since when do random websites have the moral obligation to provide comment sections?
the structure could have expanded over time, making it appear there was more geological activity that there was?