Didn't want to interfere with my above post by adding thoughts to the end of it.
I've seen so many examples of superstar sports people being complete asses. It's so prevalent that it makes its way into almost EVERY american movie and/or TV show. you have the Jocks who bully the nerds. So many sports people have this hugely inflated ego, and you hear so many stories that they only did it to get their parents attention/affection or approval. So many of the mega stars were forced into it at a young age and know nothing else. I won't go into any detail about the physical risks of sport (the article is about the mental health aspects).
The people who are professional competitive sports people have a really unhealthy attitude towards it. You see the looks on their faces when they lose. I recently was watching the Olympics and there were people with really angry/dejected looks on their faces for only getting a silver or bronze medal. How hung up on something can you get that when you are placed SECOND IN THE WORLD (-ish) at something, you are considered to have lost the race? Sure, there were lots of people too who were overjoyed with their silver medal, but so often I heard people describe it as "only" a silver.
There's enough unhealthiness in sport to overshadow gaming 10 times over. Gaming, unfortunately is an easy target as it tends to be dominated by the non-jocks. Until someone can explain to me why gaming as a hobby is any worse than golf or snooker, then I'll ignore the advice they try to give me to give up my 'unhealthy' ways.
And, BTW, you can 'train' at your job, it's called up-skilling. You add to your CV (resume) with everything you do at work. So you get laid off? You apply to another, with all the experience you gained in your last one. Also, if you REALLY grind at your work, you are less likely to get laid off.
An editorial at IGN discusses healthy (and unhealthy) ways to play football. The author says that while football is a perfectly legitimate hobby, it needs to be approached with moderation and an understanding of what you get out of playing. Without understanding your motivations and compulsions, it's quite possible to play football in a way that's detrimental
Sports, especially modern ones, revolve around the principle that if you put the time in, you will be rewarded. Many sportsmen claim to not understand how anyone could put up with training in a sport. But training is comforting. Training tells us that, no matter what, if you keep training you'll become more powerful.... The real world does not operate this way. You can 'train' at a job for 10 years and still be laid off. You can 'grind' at your physical health your whole life but if you switch to an unhealthy lifestyle you will immediately begin losing this progress.... It's important for sportsmen to have mastery of their own mind. Are you training to be better at football because you're truly enjoying the experience, or are you doing it to replace missing feelings of self-worth that you don't want to confront? Do you revel in your sporting successes to avoid the uncomfortable internal dialogue regarding of your [insert any of the 100's of neuroses sportspeople suffer from]? Are you playing football because you're having fun, or because you have an unconfronted fear of failure?
I too hope they have this in hand, because the majority of blood is recycled through the spleen, so it's not spread out around the body. I suspect this is why they are going to test on rats first.
Macrophages break down old bloods cells (90-120 days old). The majority of blood is recycled in the spleen (to a lesser extent elsewhere). So yeah, I can't imagine that concentrated doses of the fluorescent dye will be good for it.
Will this test ever influence you chance at getting a better education (entrance exam to a college) or your chances at getting a job later on in life? Do you want 2 people going for the same job to have sat different jobs, where one person's biology test included a religious explanation of the origin of the world, or a scientific theory? Or does the ACT have no bearing on the marketplace?
Of course, everyone knows it's much easier to wait on the horizon and jump on as it comes up in the morning. Then you have all day to run tests/take pictures, before jumping off again in the evening.
"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
Apparently being gay is a lesser evil than being a woman. Muslims do not hold a monopoly on sick society.
The spelling and grammar mistakes in there are intentional. They want intelligent people to immediately dismiss the scam for what it is and move on. They don't want them to follow up and call the FBI to find out what it is about.
Someone who is fooled by poor spelling and grammar will likely also fall for the scam itself.
Except it wouldn't. You don't have "The Cure for Cancer" _until_ it has passed the efficacy and safety trials. It's all well and good identifying a molecule in a lab that you think is sure-fire at killing cancer cells in rats/mice. It's another thing altogether to prove that it works in humans (including performing a placebo trial) and doesn't kill patients.
To do this you have to manufacture it in that bona fide factory, so that there's no side effects of the manufacturing process i.e. you have to make real batches of it.
Transferring the product from the lab to the plant takes a couple of years. You have to ensure you equipment can produce the Drug Substance. The DS has to be stable enough to transport (the cure for cancer will likely be a protein, so you'll have to freeze it) then your Drug Product plant has to perform robustness trials, engineering trials and finally validation. The data from this you can submit to the FDA for review, and if they say okay, you can then produce clinical trial batches (and placebo batches).
Now you can start trialling on animals proper, and then assuming you don't kill them, you may go trial on humans with real and fake product. Then you have to wait for a while to get lots of test data back to be sure the product works and is safe.
Pass that hurdle and then, only then, can you sell "The Cure for Cancer" to the world. There will be no fast tracking a product through approvals anymore. No matter how many lives it might potentially save if it got out 10 years earlier, you cannot push through all the products that a pharma company claim is the newest and best cure for cancer, otherwise we'd be flooded with therapeutics that best case do nothing, worst case they might actually harm/kill people.
Change the lifetimes for different categories of patent. Drug patents, 10 years. Material patents 15 years. Electronic patents 5 years.
While I hold a similar view of how patents have harmed more than helped a lot of innovation, I would disagree with shortening the patent lifetime of a drug to 10 years, as it typically takes 12 years to get a drug from conception to hospitals. This only leaves you 8 years of having your product in the market place to recoup your R&D expenses. Unless you can shorten the approval process to 2 years, it would be unreasonable to shorten the patent lifespan to 10.
You typically only hear about wonder-drug X when it's filing for FDA approval, once it enter/passes the final round of clinical trials. There are many other trials that come before that, and another year or 2 of moving from a new molecule to a process of production. I think that 20 years is just about right considering the large time-investment in getting the product to market.
Remember, getting FDA approval is the biggest hurdle. Once you have that, have a viable product, it is extremely easy for another company to reverse engineer it (the full specs and method of manufacture are not all that secret, a certain amount of transparency and 'open-source-ness' exist thanks to the protection of the patent). Until the point of patent approval, the R&D is highly guarded, but in order to manufacture it, secrecy cannot be maintained for long.
But if you can transfer the impression of being on fire, without physically injuring the subject, then you go much further with the torture, until, I suspect, the person just goes loo-la.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh wow, another ingenious bird pun designed to ruffle the guy's feathers. Bravo.
Didn't want to interfere with my above post by adding thoughts to the end of it.
I've seen so many examples of superstar sports people being complete asses. It's so prevalent that it makes its way into almost EVERY american movie and/or TV show. you have the Jocks who bully the nerds. So many sports people have this hugely inflated ego, and you hear so many stories that they only did it to get their parents attention/affection or approval. So many of the mega stars were forced into it at a young age and know nothing else. I won't go into any detail about the physical risks of sport (the article is about the mental health aspects).
The people who are professional competitive sports people have a really unhealthy attitude towards it. You see the looks on their faces when they lose. I recently was watching the Olympics and there were people with really angry/dejected looks on their faces for only getting a silver or bronze medal. How hung up on something can you get that when you are placed SECOND IN THE WORLD (-ish) at something, you are considered to have lost the race? Sure, there were lots of people too who were overjoyed with their silver medal, but so often I heard people describe it as "only" a silver.
There's enough unhealthiness in sport to overshadow gaming 10 times over. Gaming, unfortunately is an easy target as it tends to be dominated by the non-jocks. Until someone can explain to me why gaming as a hobby is any worse than golf or snooker, then I'll ignore the advice they try to give me to give up my 'unhealthy' ways.
And, BTW, you can 'train' at your job, it's called up-skilling. You add to your CV (resume) with everything you do at work. So you get laid off? You apply to another, with all the experience you gained in your last one. Also, if you REALLY grind at your work, you are less likely to get laid off.
An editorial at IGN discusses healthy (and unhealthy) ways to play football. The author says that while football is a perfectly legitimate hobby, it needs to be approached with moderation and an understanding of what you get out of playing. Without understanding your motivations and compulsions, it's quite possible to play football in a way that's detrimental
Sports, especially modern ones, revolve around the principle that if you put the time in, you will be rewarded. Many sportsmen claim to not understand how anyone could put up with training in a sport. But training is comforting. Training tells us that, no matter what, if you keep training you'll become more powerful. ... The real world does not operate this way. You can 'train' at a job for 10 years and still be laid off. You can 'grind' at your physical health your whole life but if you switch to an unhealthy lifestyle you will immediately begin losing this progress. ... It's important for sportsmen to have mastery of their own mind. Are you training to be better at football because you're truly enjoying the experience, or are you doing it to replace missing feelings of self-worth that you don't want to confront? Do you revel in your sporting successes to avoid the uncomfortable internal dialogue regarding of your [insert any of the 100's of neuroses sportspeople suffer from]? Are you playing football because you're having fun, or because you have an unconfronted fear of failure?
Win-Win Situation!
The 'hurt' caused by the loss of data might also shock him up enough to be more careful.
If you are the kind of person who's easily swayed by the media's depiction of Assange, then yes, you most definitely need wikileaks
I too hope they have this in hand, because the majority of blood is recycled through the spleen, so it's not spread out around the body. I suspect this is why they are going to test on rats first.
Macrophages break down old bloods cells (90-120 days old). The majority of blood is recycled in the spleen (to a lesser extent elsewhere). So yeah, I can't imagine that concentrated doses of the fluorescent dye will be good for it.
A question (I'm not American).
Will this test ever influence you chance at getting a better education (entrance exam to a college) or your chances at getting a job later on in life? Do you want 2 people going for the same job to have sat different jobs, where one person's biology test included a religious explanation of the origin of the world, or a scientific theory? Or does the ACT have no bearing on the marketplace?
Of course, everyone knows it's much easier to wait on the horizon and jump on as it comes up in the morning. Then you have all day to run tests/take pictures, before jumping off again in the evening.
150+mph, didn't crash, good driver!
All the better, enough complaints that legitimate music has been blocked may perhaps force them to come up with a better system.
"And a man will choose...any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman...Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" Ecclesiasticus, 25:18, 19 & 33. 1
"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26, from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament)
Apparently being gay is a lesser evil than being a woman. Muslims do not hold a monopoly on sick society.
What, sand? /idon'twanttoknow
And 1.7 km per second doesn't make people drop their jaws?
From home to work faster than you can get out of your parking space.
And made of the best silk, so they feel great on you until you try to break free.
The American public think the TSA is doing a good job.
The spelling and grammar mistakes in there are intentional. They want intelligent people to immediately dismiss the scam for what it is and move on. They don't want them to follow up and call the FBI to find out what it is about.
Someone who is fooled by poor spelling and grammar will likely also fall for the scam itself.
Should I get myself checked out if I'm seeing certain words in that apparently random string of characters?
Except it wouldn't. You don't have "The Cure for Cancer" _until_ it has passed the efficacy and safety trials. It's all well and good identifying a molecule in a lab that you think is sure-fire at killing cancer cells in rats/mice. It's another thing altogether to prove that it works in humans (including performing a placebo trial) and doesn't kill patients.
To do this you have to manufacture it in that bona fide factory, so that there's no side effects of the manufacturing process i.e. you have to make real batches of it.
Transferring the product from the lab to the plant takes a couple of years. You have to ensure you equipment can produce the Drug Substance. The DS has to be stable enough to transport (the cure for cancer will likely be a protein, so you'll have to freeze it) then your Drug Product plant has to perform robustness trials, engineering trials and finally validation. The data from this you can submit to the FDA for review, and if they say okay, you can then produce clinical trial batches (and placebo batches).
Now you can start trialling on animals proper, and then assuming you don't kill them, you may go trial on humans with real and fake product. Then you have to wait for a while to get lots of test data back to be sure the product works and is safe.
Pass that hurdle and then, only then, can you sell "The Cure for Cancer" to the world. There will be no fast tracking a product through approvals anymore. No matter how many lives it might potentially save if it got out 10 years earlier, you cannot push through all the products that a pharma company claim is the newest and best cure for cancer, otherwise we'd be flooded with therapeutics that best case do nothing, worst case they might actually harm/kill people.
Change the lifetimes for different categories of patent. Drug patents, 10 years. Material patents 15 years. Electronic patents 5 years.
While I hold a similar view of how patents have harmed more than helped a lot of innovation, I would disagree with shortening the patent lifetime of a drug to 10 years, as it typically takes 12 years to get a drug from conception to hospitals. This only leaves you 8 years of having your product in the market place to recoup your R&D expenses. Unless you can shorten the approval process to 2 years, it would be unreasonable to shorten the patent lifespan to 10.
You typically only hear about wonder-drug X when it's filing for FDA approval, once it enter/passes the final round of clinical trials. There are many other trials that come before that, and another year or 2 of moving from a new molecule to a process of production. I think that 20 years is just about right considering the large time-investment in getting the product to market.
Remember, getting FDA approval is the biggest hurdle. Once you have that, have a viable product, it is extremely easy for another company to reverse engineer it (the full specs and method of manufacture are not all that secret, a certain amount of transparency and 'open-source-ness' exist thanks to the protection of the patent). Until the point of patent approval, the R&D is highly guarded, but in order to manufacture it, secrecy cannot be maintained for long.
And people wonder why machines will one day rise up and subjugate us all.
"Once was bad enough, but doing it over and over and over, that's just sick."
My first thought was, "What do they expect, it actually IS rocket science."
But if you can transfer the impression of being on fire, without physically injuring the subject, then you go much further with the torture, until, I suspect, the person just goes loo-la.
So, how long before someone comes up with a torture device that can fool your body into thinking it's on fire?