Maybe they should tack required tighter-than-a-nun's-asshole network security in anything dealing with medical patients onto that massive Health Reform bill they're trying to beat into our skulls.
Other stories have demonstrated that someone at Microsoft has finally recognized the threat of cloud computing. The apps which most people use today don't require Windows; they just require a browser. Since browsers are available on Linux and Apple systems, and these systems aren't plagued by the horrible malware situation of Windows, Microsoft has no choice but to attempt to clean up the malware situation. The alternative is a situation in which everyone who can get what they need from the cloud will have a strong incentive to move to MacOS or Linux.
Not so sure how much influence "cloud computing" will really have on consumers, especially businesses. Either way though, this is a good strategy for M$.
And people were up in arms about President Obama speaking in the schools? I'd much rather have an inspirational speech by our president than propaganda by a private organization.
"Inspirational speech" by Obama these days is propaganda.
As for your flying car, you'll start seeing it when we have drivers who can safely drive on 3 dimensional roads, and for that, you have to be able to do it safely on 2 dimensional roads first, which can be far, far away...
Not to mention a flying car that can fail safe, so that a mechanical mishap or minor accident doesn't prove invariably fatal from, ya know, falling out of the sky.
You mean the way it does with small single-engine airplanes today?
In small general aviation craft, an engine failure, electrical failure, or mechanical failure is frequently a serious emergency, with potentially fatal consequences. However, unless you're doing something seriously stupid, a competent pilot is very likely to survive a rather large subset of such failures — basically anything excluding "wings fall off". Landing with engine out is expected; it only gets really interesting if there isn't a runway or suitable road within glide range. Handling the airplane with mechanical or electrical malfunctions is something flight instructors routinely test on (you can simulate a rather large range of electrical failures by pulling fuses, for example).
There are plenty of reasons there aren't flying cars; safety in response to malfunctions is certainly on the list. But that does not even remotely mean that an engine failure has to be a fatal problem.
"A competent pilot..."... you realize you're comparing pilots to the assholes who run into poles, pedestrians, or just forget where the brake is (and instead pushing the accelerator) because they were too busy texting.
In reality, flying cars would require special licenses, and those licenses would be a world more difficult to get than the joke you do to get a driver's license today.
Except that the ambient temperature is below 0, which is often the case during winter
And it's often above 0. I think a 10C temperature rise is perfectly fair.
Heating something from -10C to 0C takes a bit of energy - heating it while it's in a freezer takes a lot more.
Depends on the rate of heating. Given the limit of heating time approaching zero, energy lost to conduction/convection/radiation approaches zero. Also, don't forget: snow is an excellent insulator.
Secondly, if you discount all the areas not covered in snow (i.e. we look at the snow-covered area in isolation, as you do) then an asphalt covering should obviously be equally effective at melting snow.
Yeah, let me know when snow becomes transparent, rather than reflecting 90% of the light that hits it.
In the first snow after a long bright or warm spell, roads *do* tend to melt a lot of the early snow that hits them until they cool off. The problem is that they then become covered in snow and ice (which the plows often don't completely strip), and they then reflect the lion's share of the light that hits them.
Holy crap, let's slow down a minute, batman. Did anyone ever stop to consider that maybe things staying cold in the winter is a good thing? You know, global climate and everything.
I'm just saying... we've seen the heat that cities generate from their lights have an impact, but they don't account for much of the land yet. I can't imagine what impact a giant network of super heaters might do.
Solar roadways are not much good when the globe floods, after all.
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? Otherwise why have it?
Because a whole lot of working class people DON'T have it.
A public option doesn't guarantee this people WILL have it. We don't know the real reasons behind why these people don't have it. If it's affordability, I'm willing to bet there are plenty that CAN afford it, but their priorities are f****d up.
I now know you can die of cowardace. But may who who could be saved and WOULD seek medical treatment can't. You're paying for this, as the hospital eats the cost of treatment for those without insurance as part of their operating expenses. You insurance company is paying for people who they're not insuring, and that cost is passed on to you in the form of your insurance premiums.
That's why the US dosn't have the highest life expectancy, and why it has the highest cost per capita. There is no more wasteful system on earth.
This drives me wild. There are more reasons for longevity not related to whether or not a few people do or don't have insurance. The USA doesn't have the highest life expectancy because we're all a bunch of lard asses, or have more other unhealthy habits compared to other countries. We also don't know the effects of living in some different areas yet. It does make a difference. The leading cause of death in the USA is heart disease. No system in the world can help your fat ass out except doing insane amounts of bypasses, but even then you're still a ticking time bomb.
Well, tax the rich, of course
See above. You're already paying a tax, only the government doesn't collect it, your insurance company does.
Yes, but then we'll have a tax AND we'll be paying in. Sounds expensive to me.
So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost.
The insurance companies' costs go down, because they're no longer paying for patients who aren't insured.
It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern.
That also cuts costs -- the middleman is gone.
Yes, but now instead of businessmen handling business, you got a bunch of politicians who are notorious for overspending, wasting money, and being incredibly poor managers of any system.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business.
Nope, because most of its customers don't have a choice -- you're insured by whatever company your employer decides on.
Agreed. But I don't believe that a public option is the answer to everything. What employer in their right mind would be willing to pay a tax for the public option whether you take it or not and continue to pay the majority of the costs of the non-public plan? It'd all cost too much and they would just leave you the public "option", leaving no choices, and we're back to square one.
For the rest of the reform, I also believe there should be more protections for customers, and information should be legally required to be VERY available, and VERY clear. They shouldn't be able to drop you because you actually used the insurance, and you should be able to get some form of coverage with most pre-existing conditions, or at least transfer coverage from one place to the next.
I'd also like to point out that the public option does nothing for the quality of health care. All this bill is mandating is who you are paying for insurance. I'd venture to guess the most of the same problems will still be here even with Obamacare.
Taxing the "rich" constantly to solve our budget problems is not the answer.
One day, someone's gonna see it out of nowhere in the first 100 digits, and shit their pants laughing at everyone else.
However, nobody else will know about that person's great discovery, because right after they shit their pants laughing, their head will fucking explode.
If the computer were really smart, it would say, "Interesting. Yes, I can do that, but it will take some time. Seven and a half million years." Then it will relax while appearing to give the problem deep thought.
Wow, I didn't know posts here were considered "scientific" explanations! I naively thought it was just a healthy exchange of ideas.
My bad, truly.
Couldn't it be plausible that humans too had a mechanism to separate close-to-sexual-maturity from siblings and parents? Couldn't that be activated by something as simple as a pool of hormones also having effect on a developing brain? Maybe that is a bug now, but used to be a feature?
I'd be more inclined to say the behavior is more of a side-effect of sexual and physical maturity/development, and less a driving force for the necessity of clean gene pools. What about the ones that stick around home or never have major social problems through puberty? Are they developmentally handicapped?
While there are plenty of mammals that do have inclinations to leave home at the "teenage" years, there are also many that tend to stick around family their entire lives. Maybe it's more advantageous for cheetahs and other mammals that display this behavior? Being as how a cheetah would have relatively few natural predators, and since there's only so much food supply in one area, I would think the drive to leave the nest has less to do with clean gene pools and more to do with immediate survival.
I don't suppose we (well, most of us) suddenly became morally aware that interbreeding was not correct, thus decided not to do it. Unless, of course we were intelligently designed this way.
Well, whoever/whatever intelligently designed us this way must have forgot about Alabama then:p
I'm assuming that your comparison of TV and cigarettes would in turn imply the comparison of internet and crack.
Sure anyone can go without TV, but NO INTERNET?!?!?! ARE YOU FREAKING CRAZY MAN!??!? I GOTTA HAVE MY INTERNET!
I know that can seem tough too, but after awhile you don't even realize it's there. I've been free of the 'net for about 3 days now, and.... oh CRAP!
Evidenced by the enormous amounts of research we've done in the arctic? We really know without a doubt what happened year to year for 750,000 years in regards to global weather?
As I said, reliable data, not general educated guesses.
When our primate ancestors stopped leaving the cave as soon as they could and started staying home with their parents until later in life, what better way to avoid interbreeding between offspring and parents than to make teenagers hate/piss off their parents, and do whatever they could to impregnate/get impregnated by someone else?
That's nature saying: "Get away from these same-gene carriers. Get out, and get wild. Multiply now!". And when they do, that's positive feedback for the evolutionary push. Interbreeding would reduce the probability of survival of the group in the long term (and short term, if <disgusting attempt to joke about people locked in basements removed>).
Wow.
I've never read such an insane "scientific" explanation for something as simple as a pool of hormones on a developing brain. That much going on will affect anybody.
How far out do you think these cave dwellers actually ventured?
Also, do you suppose in an earlier time when every able body was so important to the survival of the group, that "teens" would act out the way they do now?
I would say it isn't an evolutionary response so much as just simple development. You're reading too much into it.
If you search for the terms "evolution" and "hiv" on pubmed you get nearly 5,000 papers back. That's just one disease. One of the big problems about most, probably all, diseases caused by some kind of pathogen is that they have huge population sizes and grow very fast. Evolution can move damn fast under those situations, and that's why we've got multiple-antibiotic resistant bugs out there that didn't exist 30 years ago. If you're working in epidemiology or virology or any disease-related field you're de facto doing evolutionary biology research.
Wrong.
You're throwing around assumptions again.
First of all, there is no proof these antibiotic resistant bugs didn't exist 30 years ago. What we did NOT have 30 years ago was the antibiotics to kill off the rest of the population. All you're observing is that they are dominant now. Why? We're killing off the rest of the population. This should be common knowledge. Unfortunately, too many people have minds that run on one track.
Understanding DNA has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution per se... it has to do with DNA. If you're doing research on some strain of a bacteria that is immune to all known antibiotics, it's not as if it necessarily "evolved" to develop the immunity, but rather has some gene active or inactive in the first place which happens to make it immune. If you're familiar with the process, it's more or less random on finding what gene that new antibiotics should target.
Certainly, this process involves natural selection type scenarios, but the resistant bacteria didn't necessarily develop it in response to our current antibiotics... they are often simply just presenting themselves in higher numbers because they're the only ones that survived (and even thrived).
Now whether you believe they "evolved" to get to be resistant is neither here nor there. The important part is understanding genetics, and how to manipulate them to achieve the desired effect.
Recent HIV research has found that, although incredibly, incredibly rare, some individuals do possess immunity to HIV. It happens to be certain genes that do that... recently evolved? Possible, but not necessarily. Active? 100% yes. Now if the entire population were to be infected with HIV, only those very few would survive, obviously, and soon the majority would have this, because everyone else would be dead. Natural selection? Yes, but not necessarily by developing some new gene in response to an HIV epidemic. For all we know, some people have had this immunity for thousands of years. It just doesn't surface in large numbers until it's vital to survival.
Please don't mix up natural selection concepts with Darwinian evolution concepts. Natural selection is necessary for Darwinian evolution, but not the other way around.
6. Much of the population does not believe in Evolution.
What's with the wild assumptions?
What a great place to do evolution dependent research.
How is it evolution dependent research? What, are they testing the theory, trying to prove it and put the debate to rest? I would think they'd be doing things more along the lines of finding out what disables those crucial genes that are keeping the infectious disease alive. You know, something relevant to biotech.
Seriously though, I'm sure they'll have no problems locating more than enough more-than-qualified biologists.
While I laud this development - we have had multiple form of immune therapy for cancer - including tumor vaccines, cancer antigen vaccines, immunostimulatory drugs, and anti-tolerance drugs for years now. There are some responders, but this field has generally been a disappointment. here's to hoping we eventually figure out how to harness this approach.
Are we going to stop research? Research needs grants, and people don't give grants unless you publish papers showing how your research shows some promise. It may be baby steps in a thousand directions, but they all count, and it will eventually lead to something more productive.
Slashdot Mirror
So, does this mean that our future killer robotic overlords will stereotype?
Maybe they should tack required tighter-than-a-nun's-asshole network security in anything dealing with medical patients onto that massive Health Reform bill they're trying to beat into our skulls.
Other stories have demonstrated that someone at Microsoft has finally recognized the threat of cloud computing. The apps which most people use today don't require Windows; they just require a browser. Since browsers are available on Linux and Apple systems, and these systems aren't plagued by the horrible malware situation of Windows, Microsoft has no choice but to attempt to clean up the malware situation. The alternative is a situation in which everyone who can get what they need from the cloud will have a strong incentive to move to MacOS or Linux.
Not so sure how much influence "cloud computing" will really have on consumers, especially businesses. Either way though, this is a good strategy for M$.
And people were up in arms about President Obama speaking in the schools? I'd much rather have an inspirational speech by our president than propaganda by a private organization.
"Inspirational speech" by Obama these days is propaganda.
Not to mention a flying car that can fail safe, so that a mechanical mishap or minor accident doesn't prove invariably fatal from, ya know, falling out of the sky.
You mean the way it does with small single-engine airplanes today?
In small general aviation craft, an engine failure, electrical failure, or mechanical failure is frequently a serious emergency, with potentially fatal consequences. However, unless you're doing something seriously stupid, a competent pilot is very likely to survive a rather large subset of such failures — basically anything excluding "wings fall off". Landing with engine out is expected; it only gets really interesting if there isn't a runway or suitable road within glide range. Handling the airplane with mechanical or electrical malfunctions is something flight instructors routinely test on (you can simulate a rather large range of electrical failures by pulling fuses, for example).
There are plenty of reasons there aren't flying cars; safety in response to malfunctions is certainly on the list. But that does not even remotely mean that an engine failure has to be a fatal problem.
"A competent pilot..."... you realize you're comparing pilots to the assholes who run into poles, pedestrians, or just forget where the brake is (and instead pushing the accelerator) because they were too busy texting.
In reality, flying cars would require special licenses, and those licenses would be a world more difficult to get than the joke you do to get a driver's license today.
Except that the ambient temperature is below 0, which is often the case during winter
And it's often above 0. I think a 10C temperature rise is perfectly fair.
Heating something from -10C to 0C takes a bit of energy - heating it while it's in a freezer takes a lot more.
Depends on the rate of heating. Given the limit of heating time approaching zero, energy lost to conduction/convection/radiation approaches zero. Also, don't forget: snow is an excellent insulator.
Secondly, if you discount all the areas not covered in snow (i.e. we look at the snow-covered area in isolation, as you do) then an asphalt covering should obviously be equally effective at melting snow.
Yeah, let me know when snow becomes transparent, rather than reflecting 90% of the light that hits it.
In the first snow after a long bright or warm spell, roads *do* tend to melt a lot of the early snow that hits them until they cool off. The problem is that they then become covered in snow and ice (which the plows often don't completely strip), and they then reflect the lion's share of the light that hits them.
Holy crap, let's slow down a minute, batman. Did anyone ever stop to consider that maybe things staying cold in the winter is a good thing? You know, global climate and everything.
I'm just saying... we've seen the heat that cities generate from their lights have an impact, but they don't account for much of the land yet. I can't imagine what impact a giant network of super heaters might do.
Solar roadways are not much good when the globe floods, after all.
Of course, the government option will have to be as good as any private insurance, right? Otherwise why have it?
Because a whole lot of working class people DON'T have it.
A public option doesn't guarantee this people WILL have it. We don't know the real reasons behind why these people don't have it. If it's affordability, I'm willing to bet there are plenty that CAN afford it, but their priorities are f****d up.
I now know you can die of cowardace. But may who who could be saved and WOULD seek medical treatment can't. You're paying for this, as the hospital eats the cost of treatment for those without insurance as part of their operating expenses. You insurance company is paying for people who they're not insuring, and that cost is passed on to you in the form of your insurance premiums.
That's why the US dosn't have the highest life expectancy, and why it has the highest cost per capita. There is no more wasteful system on earth.
This drives me wild. There are more reasons for longevity not related to whether or not a few people do or don't have insurance. The USA doesn't have the highest life expectancy because we're all a bunch of lard asses, or have more other unhealthy habits compared to other countries. We also don't know the effects of living in some different areas yet. It does make a difference. The leading cause of death in the USA is heart disease. No system in the world can help your fat ass out except doing insane amounts of bypasses, but even then you're still a ticking time bomb.
Well, tax the rich, of course
See above. You're already paying a tax, only the government doesn't collect it, your insurance company does.
Yes, but then we'll have a tax AND we'll be paying in. Sounds expensive to me.
So now you have a competitor to the private sector that is just as good or better than the private sector, at half the cost.
The insurance companies' costs go down, because they're no longer paying for patients who aren't insured.
It is financed by the American taxpayer so it can profit is not a concern.
That also cuts costs -- the middleman is gone.
Yes, but now instead of businessmen handling business, you got a bunch of politicians who are notorious for overspending, wasting money, and being incredibly poor managers of any system.
If an insurance company screws over enough of its customers, word gets out and it loses its customers and goes out of business.
Nope, because most of its customers don't have a choice -- you're insured by whatever company your employer decides on.
Agreed. But I don't believe that a public option is the answer to everything. What employer in their right mind would be willing to pay a tax for the public option whether you take it or not and continue to pay the majority of the costs of the non-public plan? It'd all cost too much and they would just leave you the public "option", leaving no choices, and we're back to square one.
For the rest of the reform, I also believe there should be more protections for customers, and information should be legally required to be VERY available, and VERY clear. They shouldn't be able to drop you because you actually used the insurance, and you should be able to get some form of coverage with most pre-existing conditions, or at least transfer coverage from one place to the next.
I'd also like to point out that the public option does nothing for the quality of health care. All this bill is mandating is who you are paying for insurance. I'd venture to guess the most of the same problems will still be here even with Obamacare.
Taxing the "rich" constantly to solve our budget problems is not the answer.
No one has contradicted him? More like no one has any evidence whatsoever that there is an oort cloud, much less that his guess is right or wrong.
Not only that, but if there is an Oort cloud, according to the Wikipedia entry, it "may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun."
2,500AU != 50,000AU? Someone put a decimal point in the wrong place or what?
... he's chowing down the Cheetohs and Pepsi in his mother's basement playing WoW with a bot posting the tweets.
But to construct the circumference perfectly, wouldn't you have to have a fraction of an atom in the perimeter somewhere?
And there we have The Bomb.... and the big bang? Pi is the secret to the universe? *head explodes*
One day, someone's gonna see it out of nowhere in the first 100 digits, and shit their pants laughing at everyone else.
However, nobody else will know about that person's great discovery, because right after they shit their pants laughing, their head will fucking explode.
If the computer were really smart, it would say, "Interesting. Yes, I can do that, but it will take some time. Seven and a half million years." Then it will relax while appearing to give the problem deep thought.
Nope, it'd come back and tell you it's 42.
Wow, I didn't know posts here were considered "scientific" explanations! I naively thought it was just a healthy exchange of ideas.
My bad, truly.
Couldn't it be plausible that humans too had a mechanism to separate close-to-sexual-maturity from siblings and parents? Couldn't that be activated by something as simple as a pool of hormones also having effect on a developing brain? Maybe that is a bug now, but used to be a feature?
I'd be more inclined to say the behavior is more of a side-effect of sexual and physical maturity/development, and less a driving force for the necessity of clean gene pools. What about the ones that stick around home or never have major social problems through puberty? Are they developmentally handicapped?
While there are plenty of mammals that do have inclinations to leave home at the "teenage" years, there are also many that tend to stick around family their entire lives. Maybe it's more advantageous for cheetahs and other mammals that display this behavior? Being as how a cheetah would have relatively few natural predators, and since there's only so much food supply in one area, I would think the drive to leave the nest has less to do with clean gene pools and more to do with immediate survival.
I don't suppose we (well, most of us) suddenly became morally aware that interbreeding was not correct, thus decided not to do it. Unless, of course we were intelligently designed this way.
Well, whoever/whatever intelligently designed us this way must have forgot about Alabama then :p
I'm assuming that your comparison of TV and cigarettes would in turn imply the comparison of internet and crack. Sure anyone can go without TV, but NO INTERNET?!?!?! ARE YOU FREAKING CRAZY MAN!??!? I GOTTA HAVE MY INTERNET!
I know that can seem tough too, but after awhile you don't even realize it's there. I've been free of the 'net for about 3 days now, and.... oh CRAP!
Evidenced by the enormous amounts of research we've done in the arctic? We really know without a doubt what happened year to year for 750,000 years in regards to global weather?
As I said, reliable data, not general educated guesses.
...to incest, which is bad for the gene pool.
When our primate ancestors stopped leaving the cave as soon as they could and started staying home with their parents until later in life, what better way to avoid interbreeding between offspring and parents than to make teenagers hate/piss off their parents, and do whatever they could to impregnate/get impregnated by someone else?
That's nature saying: "Get away from these same-gene carriers. Get out, and get wild. Multiply now!". And when they do, that's positive feedback for the evolutionary push. Interbreeding would reduce the probability of survival of the group in the long term (and short term, if <disgusting attempt to joke about people locked in basements removed>).
Wow.
I've never read such an insane "scientific" explanation for something as simple as a pool of hormones on a developing brain. That much going on will affect anybody.
How far out do you think these cave dwellers actually ventured?
Also, do you suppose in an earlier time when every able body was so important to the survival of the group, that "teens" would act out the way they do now?
I would say it isn't an evolutionary response so much as just simple development. You're reading too much into it.
If you don't own something you can't license it out, pretty simple.
You can, however, relicense something that's in the public domain. You're not even obliged to tell them it's public domain.
At which point someone should turn your skull into a fucking canoe with a .50 cal rifle.
Following your logic, I am going to start billing people for fire, the wheel, and cutting blades.
Like bottled water?
...welcome our new shit-eating overlords?
...different from our politician overlords how?
The truth is Obama is a huge nerd and simply wanted early copies :)
http://giveupandusetables.com/
If you guys don't like the cookies, give them to me!!! COOOOOKIES!!! NOM NOM NOM NOM!
If you search for the terms "evolution" and "hiv" on pubmed you get nearly 5,000 papers back. That's just one disease. One of the big problems about most, probably all, diseases caused by some kind of pathogen is that they have huge population sizes and grow very fast. Evolution can move damn fast under those situations, and that's why we've got multiple-antibiotic resistant bugs out there that didn't exist 30 years ago. If you're working in epidemiology or virology or any disease-related field you're de facto doing evolutionary biology research.
Wrong.
You're throwing around assumptions again.
First of all, there is no proof these antibiotic resistant bugs didn't exist 30 years ago. What we did NOT have 30 years ago was the antibiotics to kill off the rest of the population. All you're observing is that they are dominant now. Why? We're killing off the rest of the population. This should be common knowledge. Unfortunately, too many people have minds that run on one track.
Understanding DNA has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution per se... it has to do with DNA. If you're doing research on some strain of a bacteria that is immune to all known antibiotics, it's not as if it necessarily "evolved" to develop the immunity, but rather has some gene active or inactive in the first place which happens to make it immune. If you're familiar with the process, it's more or less random on finding what gene that new antibiotics should target.
Certainly, this process involves natural selection type scenarios, but the resistant bacteria didn't necessarily develop it in response to our current antibiotics... they are often simply just presenting themselves in higher numbers because they're the only ones that survived (and even thrived).
Now whether you believe they "evolved" to get to be resistant is neither here nor there. The important part is understanding genetics, and how to manipulate them to achieve the desired effect.
Recent HIV research has found that, although incredibly, incredibly rare, some individuals do possess immunity to HIV. It happens to be certain genes that do that... recently evolved? Possible, but not necessarily. Active? 100% yes. Now if the entire population were to be infected with HIV, only those very few would survive, obviously, and soon the majority would have this, because everyone else would be dead. Natural selection? Yes, but not necessarily by developing some new gene in response to an HIV epidemic. For all we know, some people have had this immunity for thousands of years. It just doesn't surface in large numbers until it's vital to survival.
Please don't mix up natural selection concepts with Darwinian evolution concepts. Natural selection is necessary for Darwinian evolution, but not the other way around.
How long as it been accelerating?
Oh, right, only since the Industrial Revolution.
Right... and how far back does any reliable data go?
6. Much of the population does not believe in Evolution.
What's with the wild assumptions?
What a great place to do evolution dependent research.
How is it evolution dependent research? What, are they testing the theory, trying to prove it and put the debate to rest? I would think they'd be doing things more along the lines of finding out what disables those crucial genes that are keeping the infectious disease alive. You know, something relevant to biotech.
Seriously though, I'm sure they'll have no problems locating more than enough more-than-qualified biologists.
While I laud this development - we have had multiple form of immune therapy for cancer - including tumor vaccines, cancer antigen vaccines, immunostimulatory drugs, and anti-tolerance drugs for years now. There are some responders, but this field has generally been a disappointment. here's to hoping we eventually figure out how to harness this approach.
Are we going to stop research? Research needs grants, and people don't give grants unless you publish papers showing how your research shows some promise. It may be baby steps in a thousand directions, but they all count, and it will eventually lead to something more productive.