Our cohort of 1958191 people from UK general practices had a median age at baseline of 55 years (IQR 45–66) and a median follow-up of 91 years (IQR 63–126). Dementia occurred in 45507 people, at a rate of 24 cases per 1000 person-years. Compared with people of a healthy weight, underweight people (BMI 40 kg/m2) having a 29% lower (95% CI 22–36) dementia risk than people of a healthy weight. These patterns persisted throughout two decades of follow-up, after adjustment for potential confounders and allowance for the J-shape association of BMI with mortality.
If you use your own team members as test subjects you can easily bypass regulatory agencies in the early parts of the research phase.
So long as you don't actually tell anyone outside of your research group about those experiments, and then lie to your insurance companies about what happened if there is an accident.
the research is the easy part, getting it through the regulatory agencies is the hard (and expensive) part.
For most of the $, it's hard to separate the two. Yes the FDA requires successful phase III and sometimes phase IV trials, Aren't those research? The actual paperwork for the FDA submission costs millions to prepare, but that's chump change compared to the rest of the costs.
But if this was describing actual drug instead of a blogpost about a hobby, QC/QA protocols would be followed to ensure that only the intended active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients are in the dose, and that the method of administration doesn't introduce any contaminants.
Anyway, if you want to hear something even scarier: you can treat Alzheimers in mice by repeatedly permeabilizing the blood brain barrier for a few hours. How's that for potential of letting nasty stuff into the wrong place?
This is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a stagnant market dominated by large monolithic entities. It's usually a small upstart company that's more agile than the big conglomerate, but it works the same in research as it does everywhere else.
For a games-theory argument, consider that the regulatory agencies are free to require any safety requirements at no cost to themselves, but if something goes wrong they are held responsible. As a result we have a system where it costs 2.5 billion dollars [google.com] to bring a drug to market, so that it's economically infeasable to implement existing cures for rare diseases. It's also impossible for individuals to manage their own risk with informed consent.
A few things to consider:
1. Over a third of new drug approvals are for rare and orphan diseases (37% in the US last year). It is definitely economically feasible to create treatments for rare diseases.
2. This paper doesn't describe anything that wasn't described in a patent from 2012. (Methods to enhance night vision and treatment of night blindness
US 20120157377 A1)
3. They aren't doing research to advance a treatment for a medical condition
We really have not seen much innovation in the past 10 years. If you think about it, what is really new and improved from this time in 2005?
You have a really narrow view of STEM.
1. DNA sequencing is several orders of magnitude faster and cheaper, as are ways of making use of the data for diagnostics and theragnostics. Moore's law might be better applied to bioinformatics than to transistors these days.
2. Cancer therapeutics that use the immune system to selectively attack cancer cells instead of stuff that is just somewhat more toxic to cancer cells than the rest of your body.
3. Just announced this week: Some of the first promising candidate drugs for Alzheimers... How much more fuckin awesome can innovation get?
4. Viable electric cars and self driving cars on their way.
5. I can use my cell phone to get a ride from a stranger in a hybrid car cheaper and faster than I can get a cab.
The war will be with Nevada and Arizona over splitting up the Colorado river. As the law stands right now, Las Vegas goes dry and Arizona loses half of its supply before SoCal would lose a drop. CA's senators are Democrats as are most of CA's congress critters, the rest of the basin is pretty much Republican, and the fight will happen when both the senate and the house are dominated by republicans. Should get painful pretty fast.
Right now the population consumes a relatively small proportion of the water that is being used. Of course, living in CA would get very interesting if we had to fallow the farms. Whole congressional districts with unemployment over 50% (before they depopulated), food prices skyrocketing as CA became a net importer of food and ag products...
Or the sewage used to fertilize the crops. If it is applied too soon before harvest, sunlight doesn't have a chance to kill all the bacteria on the leaves, strawberries, etc.
1. The amount of greywater and wastewater is much smaller than the amount of water currently used by agriculture in CA. The farmers would keep drilling deeper wells.
2. So how much energy and infrastructure would it take to pump that water from coastal cities back up into the central valley or over mountains to where the farms are?
The aquifiers won't go dry, but it eventually becomes cost prohibitive to pump water from ever deeper wells (1000 ft or more) and then having to demineralize it. Meanwhile, the upper layers of the aquifer become permanently compacted (areas of the cental valley have subsided 25 ft or more due to ground water depletion) and never recover their ability to hold so much water.
are already a generation that's never really gotten into cars the ways Boomers and Xers did - the auto executives of 2025-2035 will wonder why nobody wants to buy a faster, more powerful, or better-handling motor vehicle.
It's not just lack of interest. It was a lot cheaper for young boomers and Xers to buy cars: they generally didn't have 2-3x their starting salary locked up in college loans. The boomers didn't even have to go to college.
The answer will be that unless they have a friend with a Tesla, they'll never have experienced the notion that driving can be fun, and that $10/day for a RoboUber account gets the job done just as well as a NannyCar.
My guess is that it will skip a generation. Sort of like vinyl records.
My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving.
That's a bit of hyperbole. They will certainly have the option to buy self driving cars, but it's unlikely that everything else will be phased out and off the road within ~5 years of self driving cars being introduced.
Actually, it's a guess from a very incomplete skeleton - skull fragments, a few vertebra and a femur. If, and it's an if, the hind legs were longer, other explanations can be found. However, "walked on hind legs" is sexier. no more.
The bipedal crocodile idea isn't new or just based on this one specimen.
Here's a reference FTA:
The bipedal stem crocodilian Poposaurus gracilis: inferring function in fossils and innovation in archosaur locomotion. Bull. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. 52, 107–126 (2011).
The bigger problem is movement. Movement by pressing a button detaches your apparent movement from your physical movement, which is going to be incredibly disorienting.
I think movement by button while sitting at your desk won't be disorienting at all, but movement dependent on walking/jumping on a device that provides feedback entirely unlike the environment being simulated will definitely take a lot of getting used to for each implementation.
When you put on a VR headset, you essentially demand a HOTAS [wikipedia.org] type control system, so your hands never have to wander around searching for where to go, as you're not essentially blind to the world.
While I agree with the below comment that a mouse and keyboard will do just fine, that's probably only true for more serious gamers. For more causal gamers (and for all sorts of other situations that will pop up) I'm guessing there will be a forward facing camera on the headset. If you look down at your hands, you'll see your hands (and the keyboard). Probably with the keys used in the game highlighted and labeled.
if they have enough budget and manpower to spend it searching YouTube for drone videos,
They read a complaint that was sent to them, watched the video that was sent to them, wrote a letter, stamped it, and sent it. The amount of money wasted by people looking at this thread on Slashdot instead of doing their jobs was greater than what was spent on this enforcement. But hey, sure, cut their budget when their equipment is 40+ years old and air traffic is increasing greatly. That'll learn them.
Isn't Israel also a hotbed of computer hacking, phishing, etc.? Kind of makes sense they would have have a strong cybersecurity presence, even if only to defend against themselves.
I was going to bring up Stanislaw Lem as someone who wrote outside of the American tradition for science fiction. In a lot of ways it's like he is descended more from Voltaire and Swift.
And while I have no idea what Lem was like in the original Polish (and German, and French), there was a lot of great wordplay in English courtesy of his translator (Kandel?). Plus his jokes in Latin were funny too.
and somehow reactions to posts in this thread are very predictable, almost simple, as if most of you are just children.
Change the topic and make an ad hominem attack - You're right! Predictable and childish!
Hard to compute != hard to understand
But these biological problems are both hard to compute and hard to understand, What part of electron transfer to and from proteins do you find easy to understand? Can you use this understanding to make useful, non-trivial predictions?
Slashdot Mirror
Our cohort of 1958191 people from UK general practices had a median age at baseline of 55 years (IQR 45–66) and a median follow-up of 91 years (IQR 63–126). Dementia occurred in 45507 people, at a rate of 24 cases per 1000 person-years. Compared with people of a healthy weight, underweight people (BMI 40 kg/m2) having a 29% lower (95% CI 22–36) dementia risk than people of a healthy weight. These patterns persisted throughout two decades of follow-up, after adjustment for potential confounders and allowance for the J-shape association of BMI with mortality.
I'm thinking the title should be "Ten senators start investigation into why tech companies have not been contributing enough money to their PACs."
Being genuinely curious about the business or the tools doesn't hurt either.
If you use your own team members as test subjects you can easily bypass regulatory agencies in the early parts of the research phase.
So long as you don't actually tell anyone outside of your research group about those experiments, and then lie to your insurance companies about what happened if there is an accident.
the research is the easy part, getting it through the regulatory agencies is the hard (and expensive) part.
For most of the $, it's hard to separate the two. Yes the FDA requires successful phase III and sometimes phase IV trials, Aren't those research? The actual paperwork for the FDA submission costs millions to prepare, but that's chump change compared to the rest of the costs.
But if this was describing actual drug instead of a blogpost about a hobby, QC/QA protocols would be followed to ensure that only the intended active pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients are in the dose, and that the method of administration doesn't introduce any contaminants.
Anyway, if you want to hear something even scarier: you can treat Alzheimers in mice by repeatedly permeabilizing the blood brain barrier for a few hours. How's that for potential of letting nasty stuff into the wrong place?
http://www.sciguru.org/newsite...
This is exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a stagnant market dominated by large monolithic entities. It's usually a small upstart company that's more agile than the big conglomerate, but it works the same in research as it does everywhere else.
For a games-theory argument, consider that the regulatory agencies are free to require any safety requirements at no cost to themselves, but if something goes wrong they are held responsible. As a result we have a system where it costs 2.5 billion dollars [google.com] to bring a drug to market, so that it's economically infeasable to implement existing cures for rare diseases. It's also impossible for individuals to manage their own risk with informed consent.
A few things to consider:
1. Over a third of new drug approvals are for rare and orphan diseases (37% in the US last year). It is definitely economically feasible to create treatments for rare diseases.
2. This paper doesn't describe anything that wasn't described in a patent from 2012. (Methods to enhance night vision and treatment of night blindness US 20120157377 A1)
3. They aren't doing research to advance a treatment for a medical condition
OK, they have to offer coverage. So when they present you with a $30k bill for installation ...
We really have not seen much innovation in the past 10 years. If you think about it, what is really new and improved from this time in 2005?
You have a really narrow view of STEM.
1. DNA sequencing is several orders of magnitude faster and cheaper, as are ways of making use of the data for diagnostics and theragnostics. Moore's law might be better applied to bioinformatics than to transistors these days.
2. Cancer therapeutics that use the immune system to selectively attack cancer cells instead of stuff that is just somewhat more toxic to cancer cells than the rest of your body.
3. Just announced this week: Some of the first promising candidate drugs for Alzheimers ... How much more fuckin awesome can innovation get?
4. Viable electric cars and self driving cars on their way.
5. I can use my cell phone to get a ride from a stranger in a hybrid car cheaper and faster than I can get a cab.
The war will be with Nevada and Arizona over splitting up the Colorado river. As the law stands right now, Las Vegas goes dry and Arizona loses half of its supply before SoCal would lose a drop. CA's senators are Democrats as are most of CA's congress critters, the rest of the basin is pretty much Republican, and the fight will happen when both the senate and the house are dominated by republicans. Should get painful pretty fast.
Right now the population consumes a relatively small proportion of the water that is being used. Of course, living in CA would get very interesting if we had to fallow the farms. Whole congressional districts with unemployment over 50% (before they depopulated), food prices skyrocketing as CA became a net importer of food and ag products ...
Or the sewage used to fertilize the crops. If it is applied too soon before harvest, sunlight doesn't have a chance to kill all the bacteria on the leaves, strawberries, etc.
1. The amount of greywater and wastewater is much smaller than the amount of water currently used by agriculture in CA. The farmers would keep drilling deeper wells.
2. So how much energy and infrastructure would it take to pump that water from coastal cities back up into the central valley or over mountains to where the farms are?
The aquifiers won't go dry, but it eventually becomes cost prohibitive to pump water from ever deeper wells (1000 ft or more) and then having to demineralize it. Meanwhile, the upper layers of the aquifer become permanently compacted (areas of the cental valley have subsided 25 ft or more due to ground water depletion) and never recover their ability to hold so much water.
The team reports fully restoring the memories of 75 percent of the mice they tested it on, with zero damage to the surrounding brain tissue.
The abstract mentioning completely clearing amyloid plaques in 75% of the mice, which, while awesome, is not fully restoring memory.
are already a generation that's never really gotten into cars the ways Boomers and Xers did - the auto executives of 2025-2035 will wonder why nobody wants to buy a faster, more powerful, or better-handling motor vehicle.
It's not just lack of interest. It was a lot cheaper for young boomers and Xers to buy cars: they generally didn't have 2-3x their starting salary locked up in college loans. The boomers didn't even have to go to college.
The answer will be that unless they have a friend with a Tesla, they'll never have experienced the notion that driving can be fun, and that $10/day for a RoboUber account gets the job done just as well as a NannyCar.
My guess is that it will skip a generation. Sort of like vinyl records.
My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving.
That's a bit of hyperbole. They will certainly have the option to buy self driving cars, but it's unlikely that everything else will be phased out and off the road within ~5 years of self driving cars being introduced.
Actually, it's a guess from a very incomplete skeleton - skull fragments, a few vertebra and a femur. If, and it's an if, the hind legs were longer, other explanations can be found. However, "walked on hind legs" is sexier. no more.
The bipedal crocodile idea isn't new or just based on this one specimen. Here's a reference FTA:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/...
The bipedal stem crocodilian Poposaurus gracilis: inferring function in fossils and innovation in archosaur locomotion. Bull. Peabody Mus. Nat. Hist. 52, 107–126 (2011).
The bigger problem is movement. Movement by pressing a button detaches your apparent movement from your physical movement, which is going to be incredibly disorienting.
I think movement by button while sitting at your desk won't be disorienting at all, but movement dependent on walking/jumping on a device that provides feedback entirely unlike the environment being simulated will definitely take a lot of getting used to for each implementation.
When you put on a VR headset, you essentially demand a HOTAS [wikipedia.org] type control system, so your hands never have to wander around searching for where to go, as you're not essentially blind to the world.
While I agree with the below comment that a mouse and keyboard will do just fine, that's probably only true for more serious gamers. For more causal gamers (and for all sorts of other situations that will pop up) I'm guessing there will be a forward facing camera on the headset. If you look down at your hands, you'll see your hands (and the keyboard). Probably with the keys used in the game highlighted and labeled.
if they have enough budget and manpower to spend it searching YouTube for drone videos,
They read a complaint that was sent to them, watched the video that was sent to them, wrote a letter, stamped it, and sent it. The amount of money wasted by people looking at this thread on Slashdot instead of doing their jobs was greater than what was spent on this enforcement. But hey, sure, cut their budget when their equipment is 40+ years old and air traffic is increasing greatly. That'll learn them.
And basejumping is quite often isn't legal, especially in places where it might endanger people below. What's your point?
Who's going to buy a $10,000 18k gold Apple Watch that will be obsolete in 6 months?
Who's going to buy a $150K car that is going to lose half its value in three years?
Isn't Israel also a hotbed of computer hacking, phishing, etc.? Kind of makes sense they would have have a strong cybersecurity presence, even if only to defend against themselves.
I was going to bring up Stanislaw Lem as someone who wrote outside of the American tradition for science fiction. In a lot of ways it's like he is descended more from Voltaire and Swift. And while I have no idea what Lem was like in the original Polish (and German, and French), there was a lot of great wordplay in English courtesy of his translator (Kandel?). Plus his jokes in Latin were funny too.
and somehow reactions to posts in this thread are very predictable, almost simple, as if most of you are just children.
Change the topic and make an ad hominem attack - You're right! Predictable and childish!
Hard to compute != hard to understand
But these biological problems are both hard to compute and hard to understand, What part of electron transfer to and from proteins do you find easy to understand? Can you use this understanding to make useful, non-trivial predictions?