Okay, now I can see that you're utterly clueless about the issue at hand and rely only on other people's opinions while lacking even basic understanding on how the basic genetics in terms of hereditary diseases and conditions work. The process of meiosis itself is very complex and our understanding and ability to affect it is fairly limited at this point, but we do know that even in young mothers, a large amount of successfully inseminated embryos is aborted by the system due to detected genetic defects. Our modern equipment can detect some well studied pre-determined genetic anomalies in embryos and fetuses, such as trisomy usually by collecting cells from the amniotic fluid. Procedure is invasive (involves essentially sticking a very thin needle into the womb), and you need to test for each anomaly separately. This is costly, carries risks, and usually only done to risk groups, such as mothers that are significantly older then certain age (varying by the country).
Again, this is a well studied area, and we still do not understand nearly enough to draw conclusions of specifics of individual genes, links between various genes and their expression, but we do understand the connection between cause and effect (parents genes vs child's genes, genetic expression, genetic "lottery" of which genes child will receive and with what likelihood and so on). Our "modern equipment", while able to map genetic material with reasonable accuracy, doesn't really solve the issue of us not understanding the actual mechanisms behind expression of TRAITS based on individual genes well enough to draw conclusions when it comes to complex combinations of issues, such as "mild" autism. We also often make mistakes of oversimplifying the gene structure, and assuming that by affecting a certain expression of genes, we may get desired results. Which we often do not. On the other hand we do understand some exceptionally well studied genetic defects, such as what causes trisomy for example, such as Down's syndrome.
Finally on issue of ad-hominems. Normally I would agree with you. Problem is, we have several well documented cases where big pharma has literally purchased necessary "studies" from reputable laboratories and researchers that would say that "this and that" causes or has reasonable expectations of causing autism. The most famous case is the infamous vaccine link study, where in the end, people got convicted. With such history, taking some random researcher who doesn't even appear to know or conveniently forgets to mention about one of the biggest if not the biggest factor for significant increase in genetic defects in children from unknown lab as a "final authority" on the issue is questionable at best and a very stupid way of stepping on the same rake again at worst.
Based on all above, I call bullshit on "unspecified pollution absolutely being the factor". We have some completely unconfirmed hypotheses on the issue, but we most certainly do not know enough to claim that it is "absolutely a factor" (as for starters, any such claim would have to limit the claim to a specific chemical group). Anyone suggesting this is telling a bold-faced lie. On the other hand, we do have a very large pool of data on both hereditary traits and impact of both having ageing mothers on significantly worsening the odds of their children on not getting significant genetic defects. To claim "unspecified pollution" and not mention ageing mothers is the classic "not seeing the elephant in the room for the fly on the wall".
I think you missed my point. I'm saying that there is a clear cut genetic link. The argument of the other person is that "unspecified pollution" is to blame and that by extension there is a "magic pill" that should help with symptoms of such "pollution-related" autism. This angle was seen in various "vaccine-based autism" arguments. I'm saying that the two reasons I mentioned are the main reasons for increase of cases in autism, with 1st being basically treatable with therapy and proper parenting and second requiring much harsher approach and that we do not need "unspecified pollution" or similar factor to explain vast majority of increase - because we already know the factors and their core reasons are not addressable with current technology. The only things we can do is better counselling of couples in terms of genetic conditions that their children can get (a norm here in Finland as we have one of the most inbred populations in the world with all the genetic problems that brings) as well as societal incentives to make women get their children during their prime fertile period rather then long after it.
Autism is an active expression of certain genetic layout. You can't really fight your genes, at least not yet as we are not nearly good enough in gene therapy department yet. That and your entire purpose of existence is to prove that your gene pool, and combination of your genes and your partner's genes (i.e. your offspring) are viable to survive in this world. I would suggest that if you have healthy, or "mildly autistic" (by modern standards) kids, you're doing just fine from evolutionary perspective.
The next steps for us are epigenetics which looks more at the environment's impact directly on our genes (methylation, gene expression). Our new equipment will do this! When people say it can't be genetics because of the rapid increase and our genes haven't changed that much in a couple generations, I say, we have the same genes in the pool but the expression is different.
Is this person really unfamiliar with the fact that the older mothers get, the higher amount of harmful genetic conditions are manifested within children, or is she too busy chasing funding for her "local autism research lab"?
Because you don't need to be a researcher specialized in the field to know this. Pretty much anyone with MD who has ever done obstetrics will be able to inform you on basic risks of having children too late and refer you to the specialist in the field if you have more questions. In many countries, it's modus operandi to provide such counselling to couples seeking fertility treatments. The fact that the person you mention blames unspecified "toxins" fly on the wall for changes gene expressions and nicely overlooks the elephant in the room of age increase of mothers and fertility treatments (which I will bet you correlates with increase in worst cases of autism) suggests someone with deep vested interests in the subject of "magic pill to cure autism/reduce symptoms" and therefore this angle of approach to the problem. Because toxins likely do play a role here. The role of the fly on the wall, extremely minor one.
Not to be an ass, but who's funding her lab and paying her salary/tenure?
That is a bold-faced lie. We do not have a problem explaining "this phenomenon" in terms of pure genetics. We have two very clear cut reasons why "autism" is shown to explode: 1. Widening the definition of autism to include many aspects of "non-normal behaviour" which answers why we have such ridiculous numbers and where most of growth comes from what was generally considered "kids who didn't know how to behave themselves". 2. Increasing age of mothers which is well known to significantly increase genetic anomalies in children, which is responsible for minor increase in "real" autism, as in the one as defined before the ridiculous widening of the umbrella. Fertility treatments for mothers who's reproductive system is basically non-functional and their exploding popularity and their known genetic disorder risks are a great example of this.
Problem is that there is a very strong profit factor driving the "widening autism umbrella" lobby in case of 1. There is also the problem of telling mothers that it's basically their fault for having children too late when their reproductive system is far past its prime in case of 2., not to mention actually having fertility treatments when mother's reproductive system is in such a bad condition, it actively rejects fertilisation attempts. This is a very delicate issue for many people, and genetics are not delicate. They are a method of selection and evolution, and very brutal (and because of this, very effective). When we mess around with them to allow older and older mothers to have children, we also pay the price with far greater amount of genetic disorders.
But this isn't what people want to hear. It's much easier to blame unspecified "pollution" then accept the fact that your own body is the problem. So we get McCarthys telling mothers that it isn't their fault, and that it can be fixed with medication. And that idea sells, which in term drives the people who want to sell products to such mothers.
For the record, I have a person in my close circle of friends who's sister is actually autistic. Not the modern definition of "anti-social behaviour" autistic, but actually autistic to the point where she simply cannot communicate with outside world mentally. The fact that children like that get crammed under the same umbrella as "anti-social behaviour" ones is a very obvious money grab by sellers of snake oil of the year.
I have a serious question to the three people who modded parent "informative". How do you think "older designed" transformed kinetic energy into electric if not via a generator (i.e. "regenerative breaking"). I mean this is a fairly obvious troll, but to have three people actually fall for it is rather amusing.
That sort of fix sounds like one that "only works in America" too. EU has specific laws that forbid this kind of bait and switch in small print, and Apple has clearly ran afoul of these laws in its marketing.
I don't think you know what "regenerative breaking" means as all power generation based on generator hooked to a turbine is essentially "regenerative breaking" and has been so for the last century. To use an automotive term where this was a relatively recent application of relatively ancient science suggests ignorance. I also don't think you know what causes the stoppage (hint: material science limiting forces acceptable before wear and tear becomes unfeasible).
As I understood it from white paper, the problem is immense amount of stress caused on moving parts when beyond certain wind speeds. Essentially degradation of materials starts to grow exponentially, so while you probably could use them at marginally faster wind speed then is maximum now, wear and tear would become completely economically unfeasible.
Issue is with material science, we simply do not have materials that can withstand forces involved that would be applicable to use in a windmill.
Off-shore wind farms have a problem of wind blowing too fast, forcing shut down of the farm. This is something that danish and german folks discovered early in their attempts to get wind farms to produce meaningful amounts of power.
So the argument is that it's better to teach kids to avoid talking about sensitive issues then talk about them in the open to get the potential pressure relieved?
Looks like we don't have enough divorces and other similar situations often caused by people preferring not to talk things out until it blows up yet.
That is actually counter-trolling to apple's initial troll of "we'll just register a lot new names to get more votes and outvote everyone else alone". Also, backward compatibility is not really an issue here, there are semi-incompatible SIMs on the market today and operators inquire what phone model you have before sending you an appropriate SIM card when you request one.
Your argument hinges on it being "clearly bogus reason". I would argue that in modern world, where police are being actively hounded by people who wait for them to make a mistake and then sue for money, while their reason for arrest was invalid, it most certainly was not "clearly bogus".
It's worth noting that it took several different levels of police investigation and a court of law to finally find it bogus. Which strongly suggests that a police officer on the street was indeed acting in good faith.
No, I'm arguing that idiotic comparisons that make a point to ignore the reality in favour of masturbatory fantasy of a libertarian anarchist are not something "insightful".
Your post makes for a great example of such comparison.
Because it's an arrest. Technically you're arguing that it's a kidnapping, and you'd probably be right - arrest is a form of kidnapping.
A legally sanctioned form of kidnapping that is. And in some cases, when police act in good faith that they're following the law, they're not. That's for court to decide, alongside with punishment for such possibility.
But to argue that an arrest that ended up being illegal but was made in good faith is the same as the act of kidnapping a child is akin to MPAA saying that copyright infringement is the same as armed bank robbery. It's insanity.
No, but I am pointing out that much of hysteria in this thread is insane. If you start charging police officers with kidnapping, as grandparent suggests, you're going to have a hole lot less of arrests that desperately need to be made.
Or, they could just wait for most active products of fission to hit their half lives enough times for radiation to go down to far more tolerable levels, and then decommission the plant.
Yes, about an hour ago. Tribes: Ascend doens't have mouse smoothing.
BF3 also didn't have it.
Neither did TF2.
Actually, what games on PC had forced mouse smoothing lately? Some random terrible console port that tries to put PC users into same multiplayer as console players and not have PC newbs mass slaighter the best of console players?
Apple submitted this because it can help its overall goal of trolling competition. Its solution is a bit more expensive to implement (due to requiring a sleigh of sorts while Nokia's design doesn't), which means a slight price increase in manufacturing process of phones.
Alone this won't matter. When you do this kind of trolling for many factors, it starts to matter a lot in the world where phones cost single digits or low double digits to produce. Which incidentally is where Nokia's, Samsung's and many of the upcoming Chinese offerings get a lot of revenue from, but where Apple isn't present.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, now I can see that you're utterly clueless about the issue at hand and rely only on other people's opinions while lacking even basic understanding on how the basic genetics in terms of hereditary diseases and conditions work. The process of meiosis itself is very complex and our understanding and ability to affect it is fairly limited at this point, but we do know that even in young mothers, a large amount of successfully inseminated embryos is aborted by the system due to detected genetic defects. Our modern equipment can detect some well studied pre-determined genetic anomalies in embryos and fetuses, such as trisomy usually by collecting cells from the amniotic fluid. Procedure is invasive (involves essentially sticking a very thin needle into the womb), and you need to test for each anomaly separately. This is costly, carries risks, and usually only done to risk groups, such as mothers that are significantly older then certain age (varying by the country).
Again, this is a well studied area, and we still do not understand nearly enough to draw conclusions of specifics of individual genes, links between various genes and their expression, but we do understand the connection between cause and effect (parents genes vs child's genes, genetic expression, genetic "lottery" of which genes child will receive and with what likelihood and so on). Our "modern equipment", while able to map genetic material with reasonable accuracy, doesn't really solve the issue of us not understanding the actual mechanisms behind expression of TRAITS based on individual genes well enough to draw conclusions when it comes to complex combinations of issues, such as "mild" autism. We also often make mistakes of oversimplifying the gene structure, and assuming that by affecting a certain expression of genes, we may get desired results. Which we often do not. On the other hand we do understand some exceptionally well studied genetic defects, such as what causes trisomy for example, such as Down's syndrome.
Finally on issue of ad-hominems. Normally I would agree with you. Problem is, we have several well documented cases where big pharma has literally purchased necessary "studies" from reputable laboratories and researchers that would say that "this and that" causes or has reasonable expectations of causing autism. The most famous case is the infamous vaccine link study, where in the end, people got convicted. With such history, taking some random researcher who doesn't even appear to know or conveniently forgets to mention about one of the biggest if not the biggest factor for significant increase in genetic defects in children from unknown lab as a "final authority" on the issue is questionable at best and a very stupid way of stepping on the same rake again at worst.
Based on all above, I call bullshit on "unspecified pollution absolutely being the factor". We have some completely unconfirmed hypotheses on the issue, but we most certainly do not know enough to claim that it is "absolutely a factor" (as for starters, any such claim would have to limit the claim to a specific chemical group). Anyone suggesting this is telling a bold-faced lie. On the other hand, we do have a very large pool of data on both hereditary traits and impact of both having ageing mothers on significantly worsening the odds of their children on not getting significant genetic defects. To claim "unspecified pollution" and not mention ageing mothers is the classic "not seeing the elephant in the room for the fly on the wall".
I think you missed my point. I'm saying that there is a clear cut genetic link. The argument of the other person is that "unspecified pollution" is to blame and that by extension there is a "magic pill" that should help with symptoms of such "pollution-related" autism. This angle was seen in various "vaccine-based autism" arguments. I'm saying that the two reasons I mentioned are the main reasons for increase of cases in autism, with 1st being basically treatable with therapy and proper parenting and second requiring much harsher approach and that we do not need "unspecified pollution" or similar factor to explain vast majority of increase - because we already know the factors and their core reasons are not addressable with current technology. The only things we can do is better counselling of couples in terms of genetic conditions that their children can get (a norm here in Finland as we have one of the most inbred populations in the world with all the genetic problems that brings) as well as societal incentives to make women get their children during their prime fertile period rather then long after it.
Autism is an active expression of certain genetic layout. You can't really fight your genes, at least not yet as we are not nearly good enough in gene therapy department yet. That and your entire purpose of existence is to prove that your gene pool, and combination of your genes and your partner's genes (i.e. your offspring) are viable to survive in this world. I would suggest that if you have healthy, or "mildly autistic" (by modern standards) kids, you're doing just fine from evolutionary perspective.
The next steps for us are epigenetics which looks more at the environment's impact directly on our genes (methylation, gene expression). Our new equipment will do this! When people say it can't be genetics because of the rapid increase and our genes haven't changed that much in a couple generations, I say, we have the same genes in the pool but the expression is different.
Is this person really unfamiliar with the fact that the older mothers get, the higher amount of harmful genetic conditions are manifested within children, or is she too busy chasing funding for her "local autism research lab"?
Because you don't need to be a researcher specialized in the field to know this. Pretty much anyone with MD who has ever done obstetrics will be able to inform you on basic risks of having children too late and refer you to the specialist in the field if you have more questions. In many countries, it's modus operandi to provide such counselling to couples seeking fertility treatments. The fact that the person you mention blames unspecified "toxins" fly on the wall for changes gene expressions and nicely overlooks the elephant in the room of age increase of mothers and fertility treatments (which I will bet you correlates with increase in worst cases of autism) suggests someone with deep vested interests in the subject of "magic pill to cure autism/reduce symptoms" and therefore this angle of approach to the problem. Because toxins likely do play a role here. The role of the fly on the wall, extremely minor one.
Not to be an ass, but who's funding her lab and paying her salary/tenure?
That is a bold-faced lie. We do not have a problem explaining "this phenomenon" in terms of pure genetics. We have two very clear cut reasons why "autism" is shown to explode:
1. Widening the definition of autism to include many aspects of "non-normal behaviour" which answers why we have such ridiculous numbers and where most of growth comes from what was generally considered "kids who didn't know how to behave themselves".
2. Increasing age of mothers which is well known to significantly increase genetic anomalies in children, which is responsible for minor increase in "real" autism, as in the one as defined before the ridiculous widening of the umbrella. Fertility treatments for mothers who's reproductive system is basically non-functional and their exploding popularity and their known genetic disorder risks are a great example of this.
Problem is that there is a very strong profit factor driving the "widening autism umbrella" lobby in case of 1. There is also the problem of telling mothers that it's basically their fault for having children too late when their reproductive system is far past its prime in case of 2., not to mention actually having fertility treatments when mother's reproductive system is in such a bad condition, it actively rejects fertilisation attempts. This is a very delicate issue for many people, and genetics are not delicate. They are a method of selection and evolution, and very brutal (and because of this, very effective). When we mess around with them to allow older and older mothers to have children, we also pay the price with far greater amount of genetic disorders.
But this isn't what people want to hear. It's much easier to blame unspecified "pollution" then accept the fact that your own body is the problem. So we get McCarthys telling mothers that it isn't their fault, and that it can be fixed with medication. And that idea sells, which in term drives the people who want to sell products to such mothers.
For the record, I have a person in my close circle of friends who's sister is actually autistic. Not the modern definition of "anti-social behaviour" autistic, but actually autistic to the point where she simply cannot communicate with outside world mentally. The fact that children like that get crammed under the same umbrella as "anti-social behaviour" ones is a very obvious money grab by sellers of snake oil of the year.
Hypothesising about the link =! "confident there is a link".
I have a serious question to the three people who modded parent "informative". How do you think "older designed" transformed kinetic energy into electric if not via a generator (i.e. "regenerative breaking"). I mean this is a fairly obvious troll, but to have three people actually fall for it is rather amusing.
That sort of fix sounds like one that "only works in America" too. EU has specific laws that forbid this kind of bait and switch in small print, and Apple has clearly ran afoul of these laws in its marketing.
Humanity. Specifically our liking for loopholes in rules.
I don't think you know what "regenerative breaking" means as all power generation based on generator hooked to a turbine is essentially "regenerative breaking" and has been so for the last century. To use an automotive term where this was a relatively recent application of relatively ancient science suggests ignorance. I also don't think you know what causes the stoppage (hint: material science limiting forces acceptable before wear and tear becomes unfeasible).
As I understood it from white paper, the problem is immense amount of stress caused on moving parts when beyond certain wind speeds. Essentially degradation of materials starts to grow exponentially, so while you probably could use them at marginally faster wind speed then is maximum now, wear and tear would become completely economically unfeasible.
Issue is with material science, we simply do not have materials that can withstand forces involved that would be applicable to use in a windmill.
You mostly missed on a lot of coal and natural gas plants ready to pick up the slack and massive maintenance costs.
Off-shore wind farms have a problem of wind blowing too fast, forcing shut down of the farm. This is something that danish and german folks discovered early in their attempts to get wind farms to produce meaningful amounts of power.
It's even worse in oceans then inland seas.
So the argument is that it's better to teach kids to avoid talking about sensitive issues then talk about them in the open to get the potential pressure relieved?
Looks like we don't have enough divorces and other similar situations often caused by people preferring not to talk things out until it blows up yet.
That is actually counter-trolling to apple's initial troll of "we'll just register a lot new names to get more votes and outvote everyone else alone". Also, backward compatibility is not really an issue here, there are semi-incompatible SIMs on the market today and operators inquire what phone model you have before sending you an appropriate SIM card when you request one.
Your argument hinges on it being "clearly bogus reason". I would argue that in modern world, where police are being actively hounded by people who wait for them to make a mistake and then sue for money, while their reason for arrest was invalid, it most certainly was not "clearly bogus".
It's worth noting that it took several different levels of police investigation and a court of law to finally find it bogus. Which strongly suggests that a police officer on the street was indeed acting in good faith.
No, I'm arguing that idiotic comparisons that make a point to ignore the reality in favour of masturbatory fantasy of a libertarian anarchist are not something "insightful".
Your post makes for a great example of such comparison.
Because it's an arrest. Technically you're arguing that it's a kidnapping, and you'd probably be right - arrest is a form of kidnapping.
A legally sanctioned form of kidnapping that is. And in some cases, when police act in good faith that they're following the law, they're not. That's for court to decide, alongside with punishment for such possibility.
But to argue that an arrest that ended up being illegal but was made in good faith is the same as the act of kidnapping a child is akin to MPAA saying that copyright infringement is the same as armed bank robbery. It's insanity.
Hint: it's not the badge that makes it okay.
No, but I am pointing out that much of hysteria in this thread is insane. If you start charging police officers with kidnapping, as grandparent suggests, you're going to have a hole lot less of arrests that desperately need to be made.
It's cutting off your face to spite the nose.
Stop all arrests. Better be safe and sorry. Who cares if that big Bubba is raping you in the ass, better watch my own?
Or, they could just wait for most active products of fission to hit their half lives enough times for radiation to go down to far more tolerable levels, and then decommission the plant.
Like they do in the West even now.
Skyrim is a console port, and a bad one at that (hello inventory interface).
Also, skyrim as the first person shooter? Really?
Yes, about an hour ago. Tribes: Ascend doens't have mouse smoothing.
BF3 also didn't have it.
Neither did TF2.
Actually, what games on PC had forced mouse smoothing lately? Some random terrible console port that tries to put PC users into same multiplayer as console players and not have PC newbs mass slaighter the best of console players?
Apple submitted this because it can help its overall goal of trolling competition. Its solution is a bit more expensive to implement (due to requiring a sleigh of sorts while Nokia's design doesn't), which means a slight price increase in manufacturing process of phones.
Alone this won't matter. When you do this kind of trolling for many factors, it starts to matter a lot in the world where phones cost single digits or low double digits to produce. Which incidentally is where Nokia's, Samsung's and many of the upcoming Chinese offerings get a lot of revenue from, but where Apple isn't present.
I have to say, that is a one epic name.