So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
Doesn't seem like you should spend any $$ on this, as it clearly isn't suited to your needs.
Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories:/), no flash support
Yeah, it's too bad there aren't any accessories that are made to use the dock connector. No flash support is a no-brainer (slow, crashy, controlled by a 3rd party), and for someone who cares about "openness," I'd think impetus to move away from a proprietary format would be a good thing.
Third, what exactly are you getting for that price? Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version. For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade. For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop! But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.
I always am amused by these kind of 'but you could get a kickass desktop for that price' comparisons. It's not a computer, it's not intended to be a computer, much less a 30 pound anchor of a gaming rig. It's intended to be a media consumption device. An incredibly light, thin, long battery life, natural interface media consumption device. Repeat after me, this isn't a general purpose computer.
Apple should have included a stylus with the system. Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers. If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet. Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus. Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.
Seriously? A Wacom tablet? That is the big market that you think they missed?
Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system. By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing
As pointed out numerous times, by using the iPhone OS, they have made this an appliance, not a general purpose computer. You want a general purpose computer, this is not it. Whether the public at large wants a computer or a media consumption device remains to be seen, but based on the iPod Touch's success, it seems like the latter has a market.
they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up.
Do you get that all computer OS's have been designed for keyboard/mouse input, and not finger input? There is a dramatic difference in the rules that guide design for those two totally separate cases. Moving OSX to hardware that uses fingers and not mice would fail about as badly as moving Windows to hardware that uses fingers and not mice. Here is where I note that Apple *did* write a new operating system (not from the ground up, but pretty significantly) designed for finger input: the iPhone OS.
But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it! They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!
You are not their target market. I'm sorry you feel physically abused because a company decided to make a device you don't find appealing. It seems odd, though, to presume that everyone has your particular desires for a slate-shaped-opensource-hackable-usb/firewire/eSCSI/SATA-Wacom laptop computer.
For citations, there is Bibtex. I haven't used Zotero, but it's at least better than the experience I had of using a really old version of EndNote.
Well the experience of using a recent version of EndNote is also much better than using an old version of EndNote (which I suffered though as well). It really has become incredibly slick & easy to use in the last couple versions. Being able to connect directly to PubMed (for biosciences), search and then directly import references from pubmed is a *huge* timesaver. It works as you describe bibtex, inserting the citation & creating/updating the bibliography on the fly in any style you can imagine (or define).
I actually ended up writing the text of my thesis in Word solely to have the ability to use EndNote as a reference management system. Once the text & refs were done, though, I used Pages to actually do layout as Word sucks balls for that. The latest EndNote will integrate directly with Pages, though, so that problem is no more.
What a large swath of middle-of-the-road customers and long-time PC owners really want is a Mac with a decent video card (possibly upgradeable), a desktop-size fast hard drive (easily upgradeable), and RAM slots that are also easy to get to.
A system like that would satisfy almost everyone who doesn't like the Mac mini's lack of expansion options
It would rock the world and probably be more popular than either the iMac or Mac mini combined.
For the life of me I can't fathom why they continue to ignore the mid-range consumer that wants flexibility without having to buy a Mac Pro. It would really be a hit and there really is a market for it
Hm, should I believe that a random dude on a high-end nerd site has a better idea of what the computer mass market is rather than a company that is currently selling 2.5 million computers a quarter? I wonder what the difference in actual market research budget is between the two.
I think they just don't want to deal with supporting the technical problems that might arise from people expanding their systems. They want their more popular "consumer" items to be confined to a small number of configurations that are easier for AppleCare technicians to support.
That doesn't pass the smell test. Given that AppleCare has to support Mac Pros, the number of configurations doesn't appear to be a problem.
Perhaps it is just that Apple has determined that the number of people who refuse to purchase a Mac due to lack of upgradability is actually pretty small. Crazy idea, I know.
It's possible (but I am not sure--perhaps a biologist here can confirm) that some of the activation mechanisms are actual mutations rather than the removal of inhibitory substances on the chain.
As a biochemist, I can say that this kind of pathway is one I've never heard of. Mutation (and DNA damage of all kinds) is something that a cell tends to avoid at all costs, a large amount of cellular machinery exists for the purpose of fixing such damage, or causing the cell to go into programmed cell death if need be. It *is* possible, but it seems unlikely that nature would choose such a dangerous mechanism that it spends a lot of time trying to prevent as a regulatory system.
The best explanation I've seen is that of in utero environmental changes (prenatal experience). It's clear that environmental stimuli affect all kinds of biochemical interactions (gene activation, protein production, cytokine production, small molecule production, etc etc). That such changes occurring in a mother will also affect offspring in utero is not particularly surprising. It is also consistent with the effect being unrelated to upbringing (that having other mothers raising the 'smartened' pups still shows an effect). The observation that this effect disappears over time, also suggests a non-genetic basis. TFA doesn't mention this as an explanation, and I can't get to the original papers, so it's possible the researchers dismiss this for some unmentioned reason.
Simply put, if you bathe an embryo in SmartJuice, then it'll develop under that influence. When you remove the SmartJuice by being born, the influence will still have an imprint, even though the mouse is not producing it's own SmartJuice.
If you want to believe in creationism, go crazy. I don't care. You are free to have that opinion. If you want to accept evolution, likewise, have a field day. I, again, don't care about your personal thoughts. It has no impact on me and you are free to disagree with my own.
Except that it does end up having an impact on you. When three serious Presidential Primary candidates do not believe in evolution, there is a problem. When you have people in positions of political power who deny the basic tenets of science, that will most certainly impact public policy, and therefore you (and more importantly, me). Belief in religion is one thing, but when 'faith' substitutes for rational examination of evidence, that is a problem. You wouldn't want gov't funding bridge-building based on those who believe that angels hold up bridges. Same thing with science.
What does impact me is the annoying ongoing battle, with minimal relevance to society as a whole, is this idea that 'everyone must think what I think'.
What does impact me is the annoying ongoing battle, with huge relevance to society as a whole, is this idea that we should revert to pre-Enlightenment thought.
If you believe in religion and consider it on an entirely separate plane from science, fine...but that is decidedly not what creationism is.
I RTFA, but outside of the general "cold dead hands" sentiment, I don't see where the actual, meaningful improvement of not doing this comes from. Regulations like this are really not very difficult to write or enforce (not to 100%, but pretty close...).
We could make an "actual and meaningful improvement" towards reducing government waste and expansion by not doing this.
Unless you consider, like I do, that an important part of government is to reduce the amount of toxic shit I have to breathe, bathe in, feed to my kids, etc. Then you don't consider environmental protection to be 'waste.'
If you really feel the need to rein in the negative externalities from electricity use, then tax electricity use more. At least then you can use that tax revenue to do something constructive.
I would *love* to do so. A carbon tax or cap and trade system would easily obviate the need for these kinds of regulations. However, in the current political climate, those are not something that can be enacted with the ease or speed of the efficiency requirement proposal. I do not think it is worth waiting around for such to come to pass when there are perfectly reasonable (albeit minor) steps than can be taken. Governing is in large part pragmatism, and in this case (as with vehicle emissions, as with refrigerator efficiency standards) CA is on the side of good.
If the power were being generated by wind, solar and perhaps nuclear power why would having a more inefficient television be harmful to the environment?
Well if I could fly a unicorn to my cloud castle in the sky to see if any rainbows needed a hug, then it wouldn't be. However, neither yours nor my situation is real.
And as for global warming, it's debatable that something needs to be done about that.
Whether the earth is flat is also debatable. Just because something is debatable does not mean either side has a strong argument.
As for taxes being raised, I think it's time the government cuteir own waste. If their too inept to manage their own budgets they have no right coming to the people demanding more money.
Which waste would that be? Do you have any actual areas of improvement that are meaningful, or is this just another "government suxors" screed of ignorance? I hear so many people spout off about gov't waste without actually knowing anything about it. It seems to be just one of those things that everybody "knows," without really knowing anything at all.
I look forward to more energy efficient products, but I don't want the government cramming them down my throat.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, energy efficiency is not a very easy number to get at, and so it is generally not factored into purchasing decisions for many products (like TVs). What I don't want being crammed down my throat is preventable pollution due to a populace too ignorant to make decisions with regards to efficiency.
I think you think I'm more of a troll than I actually am...
Well I just think you are placing way too much faith in market forces to deal with negative externalities.
I'm not old enough to have bitched about all of those things
But your logic is the exact same that was used by those who did. All the examples are ones where the effects of producers actions made stuff cheap(er), and harmed the environment and people. The constant cry of 'government shouldn't meddle in the market' is a little hard to take philosophically, and extremely hard to take pragmatically (financial industry bailout much?)
Usually the problem with those negative examples is that someone freaked out about something (global cooling! global warming! global climate change! financial crisis!) and decided that SOMETHING needed to be done NOW.
I'd submit that the problem is more that something bad for people/environment is happening, and though the gov't is finally get around do something about it, the industry that is going to be effected tried its damnedest to minimize the effectiveness of the regulations. Care to give any examples that exemplify your assertion?
That's exactly what I classify this as: a half-baked short-term solution that won't do anything in the long run.
Right, like raising CAFE standards didn't do anything in the long run. Or increasing refrigerator standards didn't do anything. Or limiting tailpipe emissions didn't do anything.
Energy efficiency is one the best examples of where government regulation can, and has, made verifiable improvements in real, meaningful areas.
You mean the regulations that minimize harmful emissions and make the air I breathe cleaner? Right, what a horrible idea. I, for one, am nostalgic for the smog days of old.
All of which is moot unless you are buying incandescent bulbs that were *not* made in China (or wherever the CFLs were made). It is a silly argument on the face of it, the kind of contrarian knee-jerk that you really should consider before voicing, and certainly before submitting as an article to a public forum.
Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
There has been plenty of research and testing that has shown that hands-free systems don't decrease the risk from cell-phone mediated distracted driving. The issue is that people who write laws are not the people who are familiar with such research, you only hope that they can task some staffers to look into it. In this particular instance that communication simply got dropped. My dad does a lot of work on distracted driving, and a friend of mine was working in the office of a state senator back a few years ago when the law was being worked on. I tried to connect him with my dad so that the useful information could make its way into the bill, but my friend got re-tasked to another project and that conduit was lost. Given the law that got passed, it's clear that no other source of useful information made it's way into the legislature in its place.
while you'd find the same political reasoning on government abuses by replacing "marriage" with "net neutrality" or "BitTorrent" on a random message board.
Whether Adam & Steve down the street can marry does not affect me. Whether Comcast can pick and choose which packets of mine get through in a timely fashion does. Big difference.
a truly remarkable list of "present" votes in such a relatively short career
130 out of more than 4000, often as a strategic move, & something that is not uncommon in the Illinois state legislature.
For example, he has voted very consistently for increased gun and ammunition restrictions. Including openly supporting the DC ban and voting in favor of a similar ban in Chicago. Yet he stood behind a podium and said he believed the second amendment "must mean something" and was an individual right, rather than a collective.
He said "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" (like background checks), and "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution." Additionally there is ample discussion about how to interpret the 2nd, and case law that roams back and forth on the issue (and note, that Heller was a divided decision). So I don't think I totally buy your premise that to say the 2nd is an individual right requires that you not support local firearm regulations. Inconsistency would be to support incongruous sides of an argument, but to hold a consistent (if not extreme originalist/black-and-white) view doesn't qualify in my mind. In fact, I bet most people are somewhere in the middle and neither "AK-47s for everyone!" nor "Only squirt-guns allowed!"
An individual right != an unlimited right, note SCOTUS in Robertson v. Baldwin the late 1890s:
the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. [...] Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
My biggest beef with the NY Times is that, particularly since Obama was elected, it's been piece after piece about the 'barrier-breaking' historical significance of the event;
I think that is likely because it was a historically significant, barrier-breaking event. I don't disagree that the # of articles saying such has become overwhelming, but that is hardly unexpected.
the guy has gotten a big pass on making substantive policy statements just because he's such a 'game-changer.'
I kept seeing this all the time during the campaign, and it made no sense then either. His website has a very long list on its issues page, each with links to more detailed policy positions. There *is* a wealth of information out there on his policy preferences and stances. He certainly does not stand up and read such policy papers...because that would be *boring*. However, they exist, and in more detail than the 90% of voters care about (shit, I clicked on a random issue..."rural" and got a 13 page policy paper).
Additionally, it is pretty traditional that a president-elect not encroach too much on the current president's arena, the whole "There is only one president" construct. Lame duck though he may be, Bush is still the only one who gets to fulfill presidential duties for another couple months.
but I think we let him skate by, particularly in the debates, with a lot of vague promises.
That is no different than the treatment McCain got (ie his proclamation that he would balance the federal budget in 4 years followed by no actual discussion or questioning of what combination of spending cuts or revenue increases could produce such an situation) Debates have turned into pablum (for the leading candidate) and sound-bite attacks (for the trailing candidate), and the actual information content is just a dribble.
I'll celebrate him being a game-changer once the game has actually changed.
Well that's the point of those congratulatory articles...election of a black man has changed the game on one level. You can now tell little black boys (but not white or black girls, or homosexual, or native american, or etc etc) that they could grow up to be president and have it be more than theoretical fantasy. That is a major change for the country. Will Obama be successful as a president? Will he be able to improve governance? As you point out, that still remains to be seen.
Why don't the inventors of these various electric cars do some basic sums?
So the options are: 1. Some half-assed write-up in a local newspaper provides enough details that a random slashbot can accurately determine the critical flaw in the plan, and Dean frickin' Kamen is such an idiot he "can't do basic sums" or hasn't thought of the advantages and drawbacks of various engineering decisions that are apparent to a (presumable) novice, or 2. Perhaps there is more to consider than the fact that one type of engine is currently the most efficient.
Personally, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Kamen.
I can't tell if the +5, Funny is a result of a well perpetrated ironic ron paul troll, or due to the moderators laughing at a serious ron paul supporter.
Or maybe it's just funny that someone actually buys into Ayn Rand.
This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages.
The reality is that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac backed a small minority (16% in 2006) of subprime loans. Their regulations prevented them getting into the subprime market whole hog like private entities (incidentally, rules which the Bush administration eventually lowered).
What does "getting amendment over time" mean to you?
Well it means poor grammar for one. Care to suggest which amendment you think had an impact that could possibly be related to the financial crisis?
From the wikipedia article: "approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates."
So 75-80% of the toxic subprime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA-regulation, how do you square that with CRA being the causative agent?
Your wikipedia-based "disputation" offers the following as support: *editorials* by Ron Paul, one economist, the Wall Street Journal & the Christian Science Monitor. The opposing side has actual data, numbers, evidence, studies and working papers for non-partisan entities. If you have a better argument than 'some people wrote op-eds' I would love to hear it.
And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
I can't totally parse what you are trying to say here, it seems pretty jumbled and at least partly demonstrably wrong.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were gov't entities, then were spun off into non-gov't corporations (though everyone thought they had some sort of special unspoken gov't back-up), then were placed back in gov't conservatorship recently. They are not the cause of the financial upheaval going on. They actually got into the sub-prime market late and in a lesser way due to legal restrictions that other companies did not have.
The CRA has been blamed by many on the right largely because it is about the only way to tie the financial shitstorm directly to Democrats. Unfortunately, the argument simple doesn't hold water. Are you really suggesting that a law passed 31 years ago caused no problems for 3 decades caused a sudden and dramatic panic? Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? Do you even know what the CRA really requires of lenders (and which ones)?
encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
Baloney. The CRA doesn't *require* any risks, and in fact CRA-regulated loans are not the ones that have been causingproblems.
This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:
And by gov't regulators who warned of problems back last century. It is not difficult to forsee that when bigger mortgages are given to a whole lot more people with a whole lot less ability to afford them, at predatory rates & conditions that there will be problems. Many people on the left (and some on the right) called for better regulations, yet we can thank Greenspan for undermining pretty much anything meaningful.
The biggest thing that would be wrong with Obama is his Capital Gain Tax. We are in a tough economic time, and Obama is going to hurt the companies that have stuck through it, kept our jobs, kept our money safe, and created wealth.
Right, he would raise it from 15% to 20% on those making more than $250,000/yr (that's the top percentile or so). Guess who else signed a 20% capital gains tax into law? Reagan...and that was the low point, he subsequently raised it back to 28%.
Tell me why income from capital gains should be treated differently than income from work or interest or dividends or any other type of income? Capital gains are currently taxed at lower rates than any other source of income, meaning they are extremely regressive (generally only rich people have capital gains).
I generally agree with your post, but will pick one nit:
He states (correctly) that many people thought that decoding genetics would lead to understand the nature of disease, but that hasn't happened to the degree we thought it would.
Many non-biology scientists may have thought that, people who actually work in the field were far less naive about it. Knowing the genome provides a *lot* of information, but is far from complete.
A well-known scientist I talked to made the pretty interesting analogy of a cell to a large city. Decoding the genome is like obtaining a phone book for the city...but only the white pages. You know everyone who lives there, but you don't have any idea what they all do. Knowing the proteome is getting the yellow pages, you know what the people do, but still not exactly how they interact. It will still take a lot of work to understand how the cell/city does what it does.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you are so clearly not the target market.
So you're telling me I'm going to spend at minimum $500 on a device that is just as locked down as an iPod Touch or iPhone?
Doesn't seem like you should spend any $$ on this, as it clearly isn't suited to your needs.
Secondly, it is completely devoid of ANYTHING...no external ports (except when using dongles hooked up to the 30-pin connector...huzzah for accessories :/), no flash support
Yeah, it's too bad there aren't any accessories that are made to use the dock connector. No flash support is a no-brainer (slow, crashy, controlled by a 3rd party), and for someone who cares about "openness," I'd think impetus to move away from a proprietary format would be a good thing.
Third, what exactly are you getting for that price? Let's look at the fully loaded 64 gig/3G-enabled version. For roughly $800, you are buying a locked-down device with zero expansion options, zero USB ports or flash card readers, and no way to upgrade. For $800 you could put together a full-blown gaming computer or buy a REALLY nice laptop...hell, you could even buy a used tablet convertible and get the benefits of a tablet AND a laptop! But no, with Apple you get a locked down non-widescreen non-expandable device.
I always am amused by these kind of 'but you could get a kickass desktop for that price' comparisons. It's not a computer, it's not intended to be a computer, much less a 30 pound anchor of a gaming rig. It's intended to be a media consumption device. An incredibly light, thin, long battery life, natural interface media consumption device. Repeat after me, this isn't a general purpose computer.
Apple should have included a stylus with the system. Think about the people that use Wacom tablets, like the Penny Arcade guys or countless other digital graphic artists/designers. If Apple had included a stylus and well-designed software, this thing could be used as a portable Wacom tablet. Digital artists would have MURDERED each other for a chance to buy this thing had they included a stylus. Nope, that's a whole 'nother market Apple shunned with this thing.
Seriously? A Wacom tablet? That is the big market that you think they missed?
Honestly, my biggest issue with it is the fact that it uses the iPhone operating system. By keeping it locked down like that, they have severely limited the appeal of this thing
As pointed out numerous times, by using the iPhone OS, they have made this an appliance, not a general purpose computer. You want a general purpose computer, this is not it. Whether the public at large wants a computer or a media consumption device remains to be seen, but based on the iPod Touch's success, it seems like the latter has a market.
they should have either ported over OSX (which would work GREAT on a tablet with minimal interface changes) or just built a new operating system from the ground up.
Do you get that all computer OS's have been designed for keyboard/mouse input, and not finger input? There is a dramatic difference in the rules that guide design for those two totally separate cases. Moving OSX to hardware that uses fingers and not mice would fail about as badly as moving Windows to hardware that uses fingers and not mice. Here is where I note that Apple *did* write a new operating system (not from the ground up, but pretty significantly) designed for finger input: the iPhone OS.
But no, they decided to put on a velvet glove and slap the shit out of their customers...and they'll buy it! They are so focused on the fact that the hand has a velvet glove they are ignoring the fact that they are being slapped by it!
You are not their target market. I'm sorry you feel physically abused because a company decided to make a device you don't find appealing. It seems odd, though, to presume that everyone has your particular desires for a slate-shaped-opensource-hackable-usb/firewire/eSCSI/SATA-Wacom laptop computer.
For citations, there is Bibtex. I haven't used Zotero, but it's at least better than the experience I had of using a really old version of EndNote.
Well the experience of using a recent version of EndNote is also much better than using an old version of EndNote (which I suffered though as well). It really has become incredibly slick & easy to use in the last couple versions. Being able to connect directly to PubMed (for biosciences), search and then directly import references from pubmed is a *huge* timesaver. It works as you describe bibtex, inserting the citation & creating/updating the bibliography on the fly in any style you can imagine (or define).
I actually ended up writing the text of my thesis in Word solely to have the ability to use EndNote as a reference management system. Once the text & refs were done, though, I used Pages to actually do layout as Word sucks balls for that. The latest EndNote will integrate directly with Pages, though, so that problem is no more.
-Ted
What a large swath of middle-of-the-road customers and long-time PC owners really want is a Mac with a decent video card (possibly upgradeable), a desktop-size fast hard drive (easily upgradeable), and RAM slots that are also easy to get to.
A system like that would satisfy almost everyone who doesn't like the Mac mini's lack of expansion options
It would rock the world and probably be more popular than either the iMac or Mac mini combined.
For the life of me I can't fathom why they continue to ignore the mid-range consumer that wants flexibility without having to buy a Mac Pro. It would really be a hit and there really is a market for it
Hm, should I believe that a random dude on a high-end nerd site has a better idea of what the computer mass market is rather than a company that is currently selling 2.5 million computers a quarter? I wonder what the difference in actual market research budget is between the two.
I think they just don't want to deal with supporting the technical problems that might arise from people expanding their systems. They want their more popular "consumer" items to be confined to a small number of configurations that are easier for AppleCare technicians to support.
That doesn't pass the smell test. Given that AppleCare has to support Mac Pros, the number of configurations doesn't appear to be a problem.
Perhaps it is just that Apple has determined that the number of people who refuse to purchase a Mac due to lack of upgradability is actually pretty small. Crazy idea, I know.
-Ted
It's possible (but I am not sure--perhaps a biologist here can confirm) that some of the activation mechanisms are actual mutations rather than the removal of inhibitory substances on the chain.
As a biochemist, I can say that this kind of pathway is one I've never heard of. Mutation (and DNA damage of all kinds) is something that a cell tends to avoid at all costs, a large amount of cellular machinery exists for the purpose of fixing such damage, or causing the cell to go into programmed cell death if need be. It *is* possible, but it seems unlikely that nature would choose such a dangerous mechanism that it spends a lot of time trying to prevent as a regulatory system.
The best explanation I've seen is that of in utero environmental changes (prenatal experience). It's clear that environmental stimuli affect all kinds of biochemical interactions (gene activation, protein production, cytokine production, small molecule production, etc etc). That such changes occurring in a mother will also affect offspring in utero is not particularly surprising. It is also consistent with the effect being unrelated to upbringing (that having other mothers raising the 'smartened' pups still shows an effect). The observation that this effect disappears over time, also suggests a non-genetic basis. TFA doesn't mention this as an explanation, and I can't get to the original papers, so it's possible the researchers dismiss this for some unmentioned reason.
Simply put, if you bathe an embryo in SmartJuice, then it'll develop under that influence. When you remove the SmartJuice by being born, the influence will still have an imprint, even though the mouse is not producing it's own SmartJuice.
It's still cool, if not quite 'Lamarckian.'
-Ted
If you want to believe in creationism, go crazy. I don't care. You are free to have that opinion. If you want to accept evolution, likewise, have a field day. I, again, don't care about your personal thoughts. It has no impact on me and you are free to disagree with my own.
Except that it does end up having an impact on you. When three serious Presidential Primary candidates do not believe in evolution, there is a problem. When you have people in positions of political power who deny the basic tenets of science, that will most certainly impact public policy, and therefore you (and more importantly, me). Belief in religion is one thing, but when 'faith' substitutes for rational examination of evidence, that is a problem. You wouldn't want gov't funding bridge-building based on those who believe that angels hold up bridges. Same thing with science.
What does impact me is the annoying ongoing battle, with minimal relevance to society as a whole, is this idea that 'everyone must think what I think'.
What does impact me is the annoying ongoing battle, with huge relevance to society as a whole, is this idea that we should revert to pre-Enlightenment thought.
If you believe in religion and consider it on an entirely separate plane from science, fine...but that is decidedly not what creationism is.
-Ted
Well, I'm gonna go with "RTFA" on this one.
I RTFA, but outside of the general "cold dead hands" sentiment, I don't see where the actual, meaningful improvement of not doing this comes from. Regulations like this are really not very difficult to write or enforce (not to 100%, but pretty close...).
We could make an "actual and meaningful improvement" towards reducing government waste and expansion by not doing this.
Unless you consider, like I do, that an important part of government is to reduce the amount of toxic shit I have to breathe, bathe in, feed to my kids, etc. Then you don't consider environmental protection to be 'waste.'
If you really feel the need to rein in the negative externalities from electricity use, then tax electricity use more. At least then you can use that tax revenue to do something constructive.
I would *love* to do so. A carbon tax or cap and trade system would easily obviate the need for these kinds of regulations. However, in the current political climate, those are not something that can be enacted with the ease or speed of the efficiency requirement proposal. I do not think it is worth waiting around for such to come to pass when there are perfectly reasonable (albeit minor) steps than can be taken. Governing is in large part pragmatism, and in this case (as with vehicle emissions, as with refrigerator efficiency standards) CA is on the side of good.
-Ted
If the power were being generated by wind, solar and perhaps nuclear power why would having a more inefficient television be harmful to the environment?
Well if I could fly a unicorn to my cloud castle in the sky to see if any rainbows needed a hug, then it wouldn't be. However, neither yours nor my situation is real.
And as for global warming, it's debatable that something needs to be done about that.
Whether the earth is flat is also debatable. Just because something is debatable does not mean either side has a strong argument.
As for taxes being raised, I think it's time the government cuteir own waste. If their too inept to manage their own budgets they have no right coming to the people demanding more money.
Which waste would that be? Do you have any actual areas of improvement that are meaningful, or is this just another "government suxors" screed of ignorance? I hear so many people spout off about gov't waste without actually knowing anything about it. It seems to be just one of those things that everybody "knows," without really knowing anything at all.
I look forward to more energy efficient products, but I don't want the government cramming them down my throat.
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, energy efficiency is not a very easy number to get at, and so it is generally not factored into purchasing decisions for many products (like TVs). What I don't want being crammed down my throat is preventable pollution due to a populace too ignorant to make decisions with regards to efficiency.
-Ted
I think you think I'm more of a troll than I actually am...
Well I just think you are placing way too much faith in market forces to deal with negative externalities.
I'm not old enough to have bitched about all of those things
But your logic is the exact same that was used by those who did. All the examples are ones where the effects of producers actions made stuff cheap(er), and harmed the environment and people. The constant cry of 'government shouldn't meddle in the market' is a little hard to take philosophically, and extremely hard to take pragmatically (financial industry bailout much?)
Usually the problem with those negative examples is that someone freaked out about something (global cooling! global warming! global climate change! financial crisis!) and decided that SOMETHING needed to be done NOW.
I'd submit that the problem is more that something bad for people/environment is happening, and though the gov't is finally get around do something about it, the industry that is going to be effected tried its damnedest to minimize the effectiveness of the regulations. Care to give any examples that exemplify your assertion?
That's exactly what I classify this as: a half-baked short-term solution that won't do anything in the long run.
Right, like raising CAFE standards didn't do anything in the long run. Or increasing refrigerator standards didn't do anything. Or limiting tailpipe emissions didn't do anything.
Energy efficiency is one the best examples of where government regulation can, and has, made verifiable improvements in real, meaningful areas.
-Ted
You mean the regulations that minimize harmful emissions and make the air I breathe cleaner? Right, what a horrible idea. I, for one, am nostalgic for the smog days of old.
-Ted
All of which is moot unless you are buying incandescent bulbs that were *not* made in China (or wherever the CFLs were made). It is a silly argument on the face of it, the kind of contrarian knee-jerk that you really should consider before voicing, and certainly before submitting as an article to a public forum.
-Ted
Wouldn't you think that some RESEARCH and TESTING had taken place before enacting this law?
There has been plenty of research and testing that has shown that hands-free systems don't decrease the risk from cell-phone mediated distracted driving. The issue is that people who write laws are not the people who are familiar with such research, you only hope that they can task some staffers to look into it. In this particular instance that communication simply got dropped. My dad does a lot of work on distracted driving, and a friend of mine was working in the office of a state senator back a few years ago when the law was being worked on. I tried to connect him with my dad so that the useful information could make its way into the bill, but my friend got re-tasked to another project and that conduit was lost. Given the law that got passed, it's clear that no other source of useful information made it's way into the legislature in its place.
Sausage and laws and all that...
-Ted
while you'd find the same political reasoning on government abuses by replacing "marriage" with "net neutrality" or "BitTorrent" on a random message board.
Whether Adam & Steve down the street can marry does not affect me. Whether Comcast can pick and choose which packets of mine get through in a timely fashion does. Big difference.
-Ted
I expect next it will be discovered that there are bugs in the DNA transcoding that are fixed by patches which in turn have patches.
Already discovered.
-Ted
a truly remarkable list of "present" votes in such a relatively short career
130 out of more than 4000, often as a strategic move, & something that is not uncommon in the Illinois state legislature.
For example, he has voted very consistently for increased gun and ammunition restrictions. Including openly supporting the DC ban and voting in favor of a similar ban in Chicago. Yet he stood behind a podium and said he believed the second amendment "must mean something" and was an individual right, rather than a collective.
He said "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation" (like background checks), and "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang bangers and random shootings on the street isn't born out by our Constitution." Additionally there is ample discussion about how to interpret the 2nd, and case law that roams back and forth on the issue (and note, that Heller was a divided decision). So I don't think I totally buy your premise that to say the 2nd is an individual right requires that you not support local firearm regulations. Inconsistency would be to support incongruous sides of an argument, but to hold a consistent (if not extreme originalist/black-and-white) view doesn't qualify in my mind. In fact, I bet most people are somewhere in the middle and neither "AK-47s for everyone!" nor "Only squirt-guns allowed!"
An individual right != an unlimited right, note SCOTUS in Robertson v. Baldwin the late 1890s:
the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. [...] Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons
-Ted
Most voters are vaguely center-right
What exactly are you basing that statement on?
-Ted
My biggest beef with the NY Times is that, particularly since Obama was elected, it's been piece after piece about the 'barrier-breaking' historical significance of the event;
I think that is likely because it was a historically significant, barrier-breaking event. I don't disagree that the # of articles saying such has become overwhelming, but that is hardly unexpected.
the guy has gotten a big pass on making substantive policy statements just because he's such a 'game-changer.'
I kept seeing this all the time during the campaign, and it made no sense then either. His website has a very long list on its issues page, each with links to more detailed policy positions. There *is* a wealth of information out there on his policy preferences and stances. He certainly does not stand up and read such policy papers...because that would be *boring*. However, they exist, and in more detail than the 90% of voters care about (shit, I clicked on a random issue..."rural" and got a 13 page policy paper).
Additionally, it is pretty traditional that a president-elect not encroach too much on the current president's arena, the whole "There is only one president" construct. Lame duck though he may be, Bush is still the only one who gets to fulfill presidential duties for another couple months.
but I think we let him skate by, particularly in the debates, with a lot of vague promises.
That is no different than the treatment McCain got (ie his proclamation that he would balance the federal budget in 4 years followed by no actual discussion or questioning of what combination of spending cuts or revenue increases could produce such an situation) Debates have turned into pablum (for the leading candidate) and sound-bite attacks (for the trailing candidate), and the actual information content is just a dribble.
I'll celebrate him being a game-changer once the game has actually changed.
Well that's the point of those congratulatory articles...election of a black man has changed the game on one level. You can now tell little black boys (but not white or black girls, or homosexual, or native american, or etc etc) that they could grow up to be president and have it be more than theoretical fantasy. That is a major change for the country. Will Obama be successful as a president? Will he be able to improve governance? As you point out, that still remains to be seen.
-Ted
Godwin's Law, you lose.
-Ted
Why don't the inventors of these various electric cars do some basic sums?
So the options are: 1. Some half-assed write-up in a local newspaper provides enough details that a random slashbot can accurately determine the critical flaw in the plan, and Dean frickin' Kamen is such an idiot he "can't do basic sums" or hasn't thought of the advantages and drawbacks of various engineering decisions that are apparent to a (presumable) novice, or 2. Perhaps there is more to consider than the fact that one type of engine is currently the most efficient.
Personally, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Kamen.
-Ted
I can't tell if the +5, Funny is a result of a well perpetrated ironic ron paul troll, or due to the moderators laughing at a serious ron paul supporter.
Or maybe it's just funny that someone actually buys into Ayn Rand.
-Ted
This depreciation in home prices led to growing losses for the GSEs, which back the majority of US mortgages.
The reality is that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac backed a small minority (16% in 2006) of subprime loans. Their regulations prevented them getting into the subprime market whole hog like private entities (incidentally, rules which the Bush administration eventually lowered).
What does "getting amendment over time" mean to you?
Well it means poor grammar for one. Care to suggest which amendment you think had an impact that could possibly be related to the financial crisis?
From the wikipedia article: "approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates."
So 75-80% of the toxic subprime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA-regulation, how do you square that with CRA being the causative agent?
Your wikipedia-based "disputation" offers the following as support: *editorials* by Ron Paul, one economist, the Wall Street Journal & the Christian Science Monitor. The opposing side has actual data, numbers, evidence, studies and working papers for non-partisan entities. If you have a better argument than 'some people wrote op-eds' I would love to hear it.
-Ted
And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
I can't totally parse what you are trying to say here, it seems pretty jumbled and at least partly demonstrably wrong.
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac were gov't entities, then were spun off into non-gov't corporations (though everyone thought they had some sort of special unspoken gov't back-up), then were placed back in gov't conservatorship recently. They are not the cause of the financial upheaval going on. They actually got into the sub-prime market late and in a lesser way due to legal restrictions that other companies did not have.
The CRA has been blamed by many on the right largely because it is about the only way to tie the financial shitstorm directly to Democrats. Unfortunately, the argument simple doesn't hold water. Are you really suggesting that a law passed 31 years ago caused no problems for 3 decades caused a sudden and dramatic panic? Do you have any evidence to offer to support that? Do you even know what the CRA really requires of lenders (and which ones)?
encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?
Baloney. The CRA doesn't *require* any risks, and in fact CRA-regulated loans are not the ones that have been causing problems.
This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:
And by gov't regulators who warned of problems back last century. It is not difficult to forsee that when bigger mortgages are given to a whole lot more people with a whole lot less ability to afford them, at predatory rates & conditions that there will be problems. Many people on the left (and some on the right) called for better regulations, yet we can thank Greenspan for undermining pretty much anything meaningful.
-Ted
I've got MBP 17" now. I like it. They are dropping that size.
Not according to the Q&A or apple store. It just doesn't get the update that you seem so "meh" on. You should consider that a win.
-Ted
The biggest thing that would be wrong with Obama is his Capital Gain Tax. We are in a tough economic time, and Obama is going to hurt the companies that have stuck through it, kept our jobs, kept our money safe, and created wealth.
Right, he would raise it from 15% to 20% on those making more than $250,000/yr (that's the top percentile or so). Guess who else signed a 20% capital gains tax into law? Reagan...and that was the low point, he subsequently raised it back to 28%.
Tell me why income from capital gains should be treated differently than income from work or interest or dividends or any other type of income? Capital gains are currently taxed at lower rates than any other source of income, meaning they are extremely regressive (generally only rich people have capital gains).
-Ted
is a one line answer: "Get the Federal government out of all science research, funding, grants and accreditation of science schools."
So, in other words, let's just cripple scientific progress across the board.
Sounds like a great idea.
-Ted
I generally agree with your post, but will pick one nit:
He states (correctly) that many people thought that decoding genetics would lead to understand the nature of disease, but that hasn't happened to the degree we thought it would.
Many non-biology scientists may have thought that, people who actually work in the field were far less naive about it. Knowing the genome provides a *lot* of information, but is far from complete.
A well-known scientist I talked to made the pretty interesting analogy of a cell to a large city. Decoding the genome is like obtaining a phone book for the city...but only the white pages. You know everyone who lives there, but you don't have any idea what they all do. Knowing the proteome is getting the yellow pages, you know what the people do, but still not exactly how they interact. It will still take a lot of work to understand how the cell/city does what it does.
-Ted