From your part 3: Apparently HPV does its magic by interfering with the expression of gene P52, a factor in cell death (apoptosis)... Most likely you meant p53, just sayin.
I understand where you're coming from, but p52 is also an apoptosis mediator.
---I don't follow this logic at all. Even if the rate of cancer-inducing mutations/epigenetic changes is constant the incidence of cancer should rise exponentially in relation to age since more and more of those mutations will have occurred as time passed.
Mainly that the rate of cell division actually drops significantly as you get older. As my GP says, fetal cells replicate so fast that they're pretty much just happy bouncing baby tumors. So if mutations are the cause of it all, surely those mutations should occur more frequently when cell division is at its highest?
If it's cell division and the consequent errors which cause it, then surely skin cancer, colon cancer and bone marrow cancer should be the most frequent? (After all, these cells all divide continuously). However, breast cancer and prostate cancer are more common. (Prostate cancer has been shown to have some connection to a mouse-xenotropic retrovirus in some studies; it's amazing what we can find now we have the tech to find viral particles directly in tissue samples using virion assays).
Similarly, if it's just replication errors which are the issue, then consider how many cells are in the human body. Surely those replication errors should be much more prevalent.
Yes. There's a gene called APOE-1. If you have a specific form of that gene, you're more susceptible.
Also, herpes immunity varies from person to person. Babies without any of the immunity typically die shortly after birth. Your immunity varies depending on a specific combination of genes.
I've been researching this stuff for a while... Inferring results from about 500 different medical papers I've read, Herpes viruses are responsible for:
Alzheimer's Disease Type-II Diabetes High Cholesterol, including high HDL and high triglyceride levels Heart disease, including atherosclerosis (aka arteriosclerosis) Cancer of the gallbladder (cholangiocarcinoma) Colon cancer Crohn's disease Multiple sclerosis Rheumatoid arthritis Arthritis Osteoporosis Multiple myeloma Glioblastoma multiforme Bipolar disorder Schizophrenia Hodkin's Disease Lymphoma Breast Cancer Kaposi's Sarcoma
Hmmm... I'm not sure I buy the exchanging bits idea. If it was that easy, you could store all bits in the system as pairs of bits (one 0, one 1), and just exchange those whenever you needed to for a result. The problem is that there's a switch in there which determines which bit you're using out of the two at any time, and that switch needs to be flipped as well. Now if that little switch needs less energy to change than the states of the bits, then you've got a net win, but I'm not sure I buy it.
Memristors are going to be the more interesting development, I think.
Moral is to share cultural media items with your peers, because that is how culture is formed and how it has worked for millennia. It has absolutely nothing to do with behaving like a good little consumer in order to conveniently line the pockets of producers; that's merely the position of a slave or a farm animal, and is neither moral nor ethical.
What a load of hogwash. Feel free to write out copies of books by hand, or pass on stories orally if you want to make the millienia argument.
We have a contract in our society. You do work, I pay you for that work. I don't just take that work and all of its benefits for free - that is enslaving you. Or treating you like a farm animal.
You reproduced part of my comment without permission. Slashdot have a licence to do so, from when I submitted it. Do you? Yes, you could probably get away with a fair use defence, and the actual damages are effectively nil. The statutory damages are huge though - would you like to bet several years of court cases and legal fees over it?
So, how do you propose to make sure, to GUARANTEE, that said labor is paid for?
By only allowing people who pay for the fruits of that labor to have them, and making it illegal for people to use the results of that labor without the permission of the person who performed it.
You make it sound like I can feed all data related to a society into a computer and then determine the most appropriate course of action with societies resources.
Yeah, it is called the science of economics. You might want to look it up.
Copyright is a government enforced monopoly, by definition it does limit who can sell what to whom.
Certainly, but only insofar as a natural resource - such as oil, water or land is a government enforced monopoly.
Take a farmer. They control and limit the production of crops on their fields. They decide who to sell it to. You don't go stealing crops from a farmer's field. And after they sell the crops? They still have the fields.
Why should farmers be a protected class? After all, they're just using sunlight and water (if they rotate their crops instead of intensive fertilizer-based farming). Why SHOULD farmers get an unfair break? I should be able to go and take crops from their fields and sell them myself.
Same goes for oil. It comes out of the ground. What right do the oil producers have to sell it? I should be able to sell it too - after all, it's a natural resource.
Water falls out of the sky - why should anyone charge to pipe it to Las Vegas? After all, once the pipe is built, it's just water running through it.
That's a common belief among those who have not thought through the consequences of maintaining the copyright monopoly. While the duration of copyrights is certainly abusive today, that is far from the largest problem with copyright. The largest problem is that copyright is unenforceable in any real fashion and is in contradiction to the natural right of free expression. Business models work at the intersection of the laws of man and the laws of real world. The real world changed in the late 1960's with the start of the internet. What was once naturally enforceable - making copies was expensive, time-consuming and capital-intensive - is now impossible to enforce because making copies requires essentially zero marginal cost and can be effectively anonymous.
There is no such "natural right of free expression". If you honestly think that 99% of the people who use Bittorrent are expressing anything other than their desire to get shit that other people charge money for, for free (which I guess you could call free expression), then I fear that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Sure, that is a viable model in certain circumstances - I really like the idea of custom performances that, for a moderate fee, say in the triple digits, tailor the work to the patron's wishes - like a professional recording of "Happy Birthday" which includes the name of your child, or a jazz-vocal love song with your girl-friend's name substituted so that you can play it when you propose. Thanks to the wide reach of the internet, there is so much more opportunity for the patronage business model than there was before.
How large do you think the market is for that? If it was that large, it would be happening right now, all the time. It's certainly not something that's affordable for most people to buy - not and give the performer a living wage. So do you want to condemn the performer to spending all their time scrabbling for income, or do you want them to have a system where they can actually attempt to make enough to spend that time actually working on their next work?
Artists don't sit on their butts after they create anything. Usually they have many good ideas, all clamoring for attention. Without revenue from their work, they will have to hold down a job (or two jobs!) to do it. And never mind the level of quality you're planning on condemning us all to.
Another model is subscriptions where as long as there are enough paid up subscriptions, the creator releases each work to the public domain. The subscription model, and other variations of the ransom model like escrow are extremely beneficial to both parties - if you don't have to start work until the money is already in the bank, that means financial risk is reduced to nearly zero - which is the holy grail of hollywood.
The flip-side of subscriptions is the people paying are the ones who directly consume the results, thus there is no middle-man selling advertising who can distort the
I am all for government enforced transparency - accurate information is an essential ingredient of free markets. What I am not for is when the government grants monopolies like copyright, but also like broadband internet, telephone, etc.
I hope you can see the difference between requiring adequate disclosure and actually limiting who can sell what to whom.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that copyright is actually limiting who can sell what to whom per se. I'm all for shorter copyright terms myself, but I think getting rid of the system entirely would be a mistake. Unless you want to return to a patronage system.
Apples / Quercetin supplements can help with the AGEs. They'll also boost your liver's immune system too, by enhancing the action of macrophages. (The Quercetin is probably the best bet.. because it's concentrated, although the apples will help generally - for some reason I always feel clearer after eating an apple).
Basically, the Quercetin acts to prevent the breakdown of aldolase, making more of it available to nix the breakdown products. One of these is a metabolic byproduct of fructose, which inhibits the action of macrophages. So take the Quercetin, and the macrophages will get to work again.
If you figure that the amount of fructose in our diet is way too high right now, we might not have enough aldolase to properly mop up the byproducts in our systems - so the Quercetin should help with that.
It explains why it helps long distance runners avoid getting colds at least...
Be sure to get the right kind of B12 - cyanocobalmin is the WRONG type for most people, but especially so for smokers as the cyanide in the cigarette smoke needs to be mopped up by something, and usually it's mopped up by B12. If you have the cyanocobalmin form you're just exacerbating the problem. The only problem is that most kinds of B12 you find in stores is of the cyano type.
Get the methyl type (especially if you're a smoker), or the hydroxy kind (best if you're not a smoker, most likely).
So are you saying it's bigotted to discriminate against pedophiles, what about against incest? Technically these are orientations that 'can't be changed'?
The important difference here is the consensuality of the act.
Homosexuality? Consensual. Heterosexuality? Consensual? Paedophilia? By definition, non-consensual. Incest? If there's paedophilia involved, it's non-consensual. If there isn't... well... shoot, that's a gray area.
The free market works perfectly with perfect information. As long as there's not perfect information, there's no perfect market, and a "free" market needs watching from time to time.
I beg to differ. Look at Walmart - they have probably the closest you can get to perfect information, and they use it to bully their suppliers into dropping prices. Perfect information in a free market is a bad thing; it actually relies on a certain amount of fuzziness to give the necessary elasticity.
The only analogy that comes to mind is piracy (and it's not a good fit). Swapping tapes of games at school doesn't cause much damage. Bittorrent the games? Now thousands of people get a copy per item sold vs. two or three. Perfect Information = Bittorrent.
Did you document it perfectly? Of course not -- you wrote it, you know how it works, so you'll invest nothing in educating others.
I always document my code perfectly. I used to be an assembly language programmer; I learned the hard way. That, and I've maintained others' code that didn't. Never will I foist that on someone else.
The STL has provided strings in C++ since 1994 -- if you're writing one in 2008, it's because you're so incompetent you don't know the full language
Or it's because you're working in a domain for which the STL implementation is not sufficient. Like, for example, games. Sometimes the generalized version sucks compared to a specialized one.
Say you own a corporation -- not a mega-giant one, just your regular old mom&pop type. You work really hard, pay your workers, pay your expenses, and pay yourself everything that is left over. The government then taxes you on all of the profit you took out as income. If the government also taxed the "profit" the corp made before you paid yourself, you would be getting taxed TWICE on the same money. So for example if the corp profit was $100k, after corp taxes you'd have maybe $70k. Then after personal taxes and SS, maybe $50k, at which point you might just say "fuck it" -- 50% is too much tax -- fire everyone, and get a job from someone else in which you would earn more and be taxed less.
Well, let's see. What structure is your corporation set up under? If you're a sole-proprietor, there's no such thing as double taxation (your income = corp. income; your losses = corp. losses too, so you can write off all your expenses). If it's bigger, there are plenty of other mechanisms to shift money around so you don't get double-taxed as an owner.
Indeed. I'm in the 33% bracket, and my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income.. and Obama think it's MY responsibity to "life up" the guy behind me? Fuck that. I'm still paying student loans from college, and so is my mom. Where are the people to lift US up??
Where the hell do you get the idea that you'll get a tax increase on your income? Listen to Fox News / McCain much?
1. Your student loan payments are tax deductible. 2. You don't have a 6 figure income? Tax increases don't kick in under Obama's plan until you're earning > $250,000 a year. OVER DOUBLE, more likely THREE times what you claim to be making.
Congratulations sir. You will be getting a modest tax decrease. Enjoy.
Slashdot Mirror
From your part 3: Apparently HPV does its magic by interfering with the expression of gene P52, a factor in cell death (apoptosis)... Most likely you meant p53, just sayin.
I understand where you're coming from, but p52 is also an apoptosis mediator.
---I don't follow this logic at all. Even if the rate of cancer-inducing mutations/epigenetic changes is constant the incidence of cancer should rise exponentially in relation to age since more and more of those mutations will have occurred as time passed.
Mainly that the rate of cell division actually drops significantly as you get older. As my GP says, fetal cells replicate so fast that they're pretty much just happy bouncing baby tumors. So if mutations are the cause of it all, surely those mutations should occur more frequently when cell division is at its highest?
If it's cell division and the consequent errors which cause it, then surely skin cancer, colon cancer and bone marrow cancer should be the most frequent? (After all, these cells all divide continuously). However, breast cancer and prostate cancer are more common. (Prostate cancer has been shown to have some connection to a mouse-xenotropic retrovirus in some studies; it's amazing what we can find now we have the tech to find viral particles directly in tissue samples using virion assays).
Similarly, if it's just replication errors which are the issue, then consider how many cells are in the human body. Surely those replication errors should be much more prevalent.
Yes. There's a gene called APOE-1. If you have a specific form of that gene, you're more susceptible.
Also, herpes immunity varies from person to person. Babies without any of the immunity typically die shortly after birth. Your immunity varies depending on a specific combination of genes.
I've been researching this stuff for a while... Inferring results from about 500 different medical papers I've read, Herpes viruses are responsible for:
Alzheimer's Disease
Type-II Diabetes
High Cholesterol, including high HDL and high triglyceride levels
Heart disease, including atherosclerosis (aka arteriosclerosis)
Cancer of the gallbladder (cholangiocarcinoma)
Colon cancer
Crohn's disease
Multiple sclerosis
Rheumatoid arthritis
Arthritis
Osteoporosis
Multiple myeloma
Glioblastoma multiforme
Bipolar disorder
Schizophrenia
Hodkin's Disease
Lymphoma
Breast Cancer
Kaposi's Sarcoma
http://www.accidentalscientist.com/2008/01/public-enemy-1-herpes-viruses-as.html
Hmmm... I'm not sure I buy the exchanging bits idea. If it was that easy, you could store all bits in the system as pairs of bits (one 0, one 1), and just exchange those whenever you needed to for a result. The problem is that there's a switch in there which determines which bit you're using out of the two at any time, and that switch needs to be flipped as well. Now if that little switch needs less energy to change than the states of the bits, then you've got a net win, but I'm not sure I buy it.
Memristors are going to be the more interesting development, I think.
Moral is to share cultural media items with your peers, because that is how culture is formed and how it has worked for millennia. It has absolutely nothing to do with behaving like a good little consumer in order to conveniently line the pockets of producers; that's merely the position of a slave or a farm animal, and is neither moral nor ethical.
What a load of hogwash. Feel free to write out copies of books by hand, or pass on stories orally if you want to make the millienia argument.
We have a contract in our society. You do work, I pay you for that work. I don't just take that work and all of its benefits for free - that is enslaving you. Or treating you like a farm animal.
You have it backwards, and you're an idiot.
You reproduced part of my comment without permission. Slashdot have a licence to do so, from when I submitted it. Do you? Yes, you could probably get away with a fair use defence, and the actual damages are effectively nil. The statutory damages are huge though - would you like to bet several years of court cases and legal fees over it?
Sure!
Because this is covered under "fair use".
So, how do you propose to make sure, to GUARANTEE, that said labor is paid for?
By only allowing people who pay for the fruits of that labor to have them, and making it illegal for people to use the results of that labor without the permission of the person who performed it.
Oh hey, kind of like the situation we have now.
Labor, on the other hand, is rivalrous and is scarce. Learn the difference.
Yet that labor is required to created that structured data, which requires payment.
You make it sound like I can feed all data related to a society into a computer and then determine the most appropriate course of action with societies resources.
Yeah, it is called the science of economics. You might want to look it up.
Sounds more like communism to me.
Do you dispute that information is neither rivalrous nor scarce?
Data is plentiful. Structured data is not. Learn the difference.
Copyright is a government enforced monopoly, by definition it does limit who can sell what to whom.
Certainly, but only insofar as a natural resource - such as oil, water or land is a government enforced monopoly.
Take a farmer. They control and limit the production of crops on their fields. They decide who to sell it to. You don't go stealing crops from a farmer's field. And after they sell the crops? They still have the fields.
Why should farmers be a protected class? After all, they're just using sunlight and water (if they rotate their crops instead of intensive fertilizer-based farming). Why SHOULD farmers get an unfair break? I should be able to go and take crops from their fields and sell them myself.
Same goes for oil. It comes out of the ground. What right do the oil producers have to sell it? I should be able to sell it too - after all, it's a natural resource.
Water falls out of the sky - why should anyone charge to pipe it to Las Vegas? After all, once the pipe is built, it's just water running through it.
That's a common belief among those who have not thought through the consequences of maintaining the copyright monopoly. While the duration of copyrights is certainly abusive today, that is far from the largest problem with copyright. The largest problem is that copyright is unenforceable in any real fashion and is in contradiction to the natural right of free expression. Business models work at the intersection of the laws of man and the laws of real world. The real world changed in the late 1960's with the start of the internet. What was once naturally enforceable - making copies was expensive, time-consuming and capital-intensive - is now impossible to enforce because making copies requires essentially zero marginal cost and can be effectively anonymous.
There is no such "natural right of free expression". If you honestly think that 99% of the people who use Bittorrent are expressing anything other than their desire to get shit that other people charge money for, for free (which I guess you could call free expression), then I fear that you're barking up the wrong tree.
Sure, that is a viable model in certain circumstances - I really like the idea of custom performances that, for a moderate fee, say in the triple digits, tailor the work to the patron's wishes - like a professional recording of "Happy Birthday" which includes the name of your child, or a jazz-vocal love song with your girl-friend's name substituted so that you can play it when you propose. Thanks to the wide reach of the internet, there is so much more opportunity for the patronage business model than there was before.
How large do you think the market is for that? If it was that large, it would be happening right now, all the time. It's certainly not something that's affordable for most people to buy - not and give the performer a living wage. So do you want to condemn the performer to spending all their time scrabbling for income, or do you want them to have a system where they can actually attempt to make enough to spend that time actually working on their next work?
Artists don't sit on their butts after they create anything. Usually they have many good ideas, all clamoring for attention. Without revenue from their work, they will have to hold down a job (or two jobs!) to do it. And never mind the level of quality you're planning on condemning us all to.
Another model is subscriptions where as long as there are enough paid up subscriptions, the creator releases each work to the public domain. The subscription model, and other variations of the ransom model like escrow are extremely beneficial to both parties - if you don't have to start work until the money is already in the bank, that means financial risk is reduced to nearly zero - which is the holy grail of hollywood.
The flip-side of subscriptions is the people paying are the ones who directly consume the results, thus there is no middle-man selling advertising who can distort the
I am all for government enforced transparency - accurate information is an essential ingredient of free markets. What I am not for is when the government grants monopolies like copyright, but also like broadband internet, telephone, etc.
I hope you can see the difference between requiring adequate disclosure and actually limiting who can sell what to whom.
Hmmm... I'm not sure that copyright is actually limiting who can sell what to whom per se. I'm all for shorter copyright terms myself, but I think getting rid of the system entirely would be a mistake. Unless you want to return to a patronage system.
Far from it, if anything, I am a radical free-marketer.
Well that worked well with the banking industry didn't it...
Apples / Quercetin supplements can help with the AGEs. They'll also boost your liver's immune system too, by enhancing the action of macrophages. (The Quercetin is probably the best bet.. because it's concentrated, although the apples will help generally - for some reason I always feel clearer after eating an apple).
Basically, the Quercetin acts to prevent the breakdown of aldolase, making more of it available to nix the breakdown products. One of these is a metabolic byproduct of fructose, which inhibits the action of macrophages. So take the Quercetin, and the macrophages will get to work again.
If you figure that the amount of fructose in our diet is way too high right now, we might not have enough aldolase to properly mop up the byproducts in our systems - so the Quercetin should help with that.
It explains why it helps long distance runners avoid getting colds at least...
Be sure to get the right kind of B12 - cyanocobalmin is the WRONG type for most people, but especially so for smokers as the cyanide in the cigarette smoke needs to be mopped up by something, and usually it's mopped up by B12. If you have the cyanocobalmin form you're just exacerbating the problem. The only problem is that most kinds of B12 you find in stores is of the cyano type.
Get the methyl type (especially if you're a smoker), or the hydroxy kind (best if you're not a smoker, most likely).
Nothing is ever a bug on windows, however as soon as firefox crashes on ubuntu.. "OMG linux is the suxors!!"
Tell ya what, you go ahead believing whatever you want to believe, whereas I'll just install my BIOS patch and fix the issue.
Oh wait, I already did.
So are you saying it's bigotted to discriminate against pedophiles, what about against incest? Technically these are orientations that 'can't be changed'?
The important difference here is the consensuality of the act.
Homosexuality? Consensual.
Heterosexuality? Consensual?
Paedophilia? By definition, non-consensual.
Incest? If there's paedophilia involved, it's non-consensual. If there isn't... well... shoot, that's a gray area.
This is still cheating - it's first of all not actually booting but suspending/resuming (albeit smartly).
Who cares? Programming is all about finding the right cheats.
That's not a bug in Windows - it's a BIOS issue.
The free market works perfectly with perfect information. As long as there's not perfect information, there's no perfect market, and a "free" market needs watching from time to time.
I beg to differ. Look at Walmart - they have probably the closest you can get to perfect information, and they use it to bully their suppliers into dropping prices. Perfect information in a free market is a bad thing; it actually relies on a certain amount of fuzziness to give the necessary elasticity.
The only analogy that comes to mind is piracy (and it's not a good fit). Swapping tapes of games at school doesn't cause much damage. Bittorrent the games? Now thousands of people get a copy per item sold vs. two or three. Perfect Information = Bittorrent.
Did you document it perfectly? Of course not -- you wrote it, you know how it works, so you'll invest nothing in educating others.
I always document my code perfectly. I used to be an assembly language programmer; I learned the hard way. That, and I've maintained others' code that didn't. Never will I foist that on someone else.
The STL has provided strings in C++ since 1994 -- if you're writing one in 2008, it's because you're so incompetent you don't know the full language
Or it's because you're working in a domain for which the STL implementation is not sufficient. Like, for example, games. Sometimes the generalized version sucks compared to a specialized one.
They do that in the factory? I could've sworn they'd use robotic arms or something to place them.
Say you own a corporation -- not a mega-giant one, just your regular old mom&pop type. You work really hard, pay your workers, pay your expenses, and pay yourself everything that is left over. The government then taxes you on all of the profit you took out as income. If the government also taxed the "profit" the corp made before you paid yourself, you would be getting taxed TWICE on the same money. So for example if the corp profit was $100k, after corp taxes you'd have maybe $70k. Then after personal taxes and SS, maybe $50k, at which point you might just say "fuck it" -- 50% is too much tax -- fire everyone, and get a job from someone else in which you would earn more and be taxed less.
Well, let's see. What structure is your corporation set up under? If you're a sole-proprietor, there's no such thing as double taxation (your income = corp. income; your losses = corp. losses too, so you can write off all your expenses). If it's bigger, there are plenty of other mechanisms to shift money around so you don't get double-taxed as an owner.
Indeed. I'm in the 33% bracket, and my wife and I together don't even have a 6 figure income.. and Obama think it's MY responsibity to "life up" the guy behind me? Fuck that. I'm still paying student loans from college, and so is my mom. Where are the people to lift US up??
Where the hell do you get the idea that you'll get a tax increase on your income? Listen to Fox News / McCain much?
1. Your student loan payments are tax deductible.
2. You don't have a 6 figure income? Tax increases don't kick in under Obama's plan until you're earning > $250,000 a year. OVER DOUBLE, more likely THREE times what you claim to be making.
Congratulations sir. You will be getting a modest tax decrease. Enjoy.
But what they're asking for is basically cut-price Milspec. *shrugs*.