Five is a very manageable number for some things. Dengue, which has four main strains, has still been a problem. They are making progress with it, but it has been challenging. This is partly because insufficient protection against one strain (antibodies that bind somewhat but don't neutralize the virus enough) can actually make the disease more severe and increase the lethality. This is mostly unique to dengue though; I don't think it applies to malaria as well.
That's not true; if fewer people get the disease, fewer mosquitoes pick it up, which means fewer people spreading it. Having an animal vector makes it harder to wipe out a disease with herd immunity, but not impossible, especially since malaria needs both humans and mosquitoes to reproduce.
If you're trying to make money off of vaccines - especially a malaria vaccine, which would mostly be useful in underdeveloped (and poor) countries - you're not good at business.
Well, after it's been in the ground long enough, it doesn't contain carbon-14 any more, because it decayed to nitrogen. If you use carbon dating on those, there isn't enough left to get an accurate reading, which is exactly what you'd expect to happen.
Carbon dating isn't used for things older than about 100,000 years. Anything older than that uses other radioisotypes to determine age, which don't vary with atmospheric composition.
No, that only affects carbon dating. Most fossils are far too old to use carbon dating, as C14 has a relatively short half-life (compared to geologic timescales). As such, fossil dating shouldn't be affected.
Well, from the article, it seems like these were different job openings, which may have had different requirements each time, meeting with different people to gauge her fit with the group, etc. That's hardly a bad fuck-up. Remember that this was four times across seven years, and they mentioned the previous interviews when saying they wanted to talk to her about a new position.
No, in the US today, we really are trying to not even give merit to those that do excel despite today's education system. I think I read the other day about a high school that had something like 50+ valedictorians...?? WTF? Afraid to hurt someones feelings that they didn't make the cut?
There was a high school near me who did that. Everyone with at least a 3.8 GPA (IIRC) was a valedictorian. I thought it was a stupid idea.
I mean, you could already create a list of your female friends and make certain posts only visible to them, so those weren't the only options. This new thing will make it easier, but they had the option before that.
Using "SJW" as a pejorative doesn't mean one is against social justice. "SJW" is supposed to refer to someone who follows feelings more than facts, who believes everything a woman/PoC says about being harassed (as long as it fits their agenda, otherwise they have "internalized misogyny/racism"); they're also pretty much just keyboard warriors who don't fact-check. They're the sort who look at the many injustices in the world and then want to push them too far in the other direction; they idealize and fetishize the oppressed. It's perfectly reasonable to be against this sort of outlook while still advocating for actual social justice.
That being said, there are plenty of people who get mislabeled as SJWs. Social justice is a great thing, and we should strive for it (because we clearly haven't gotten there yet). I think using "SJW" to refer to those sort of people was a mistake, but that's where things are right now.
Some drunk people may choose not to take an Uber/Lyft because of surge pricing, but there's also traditional cabs. I don't think Uber or Lyft is going to increase the number of drunk drivers compared to what the situation is without them.
Hasn't a large part of feminism's push recently been to not judge people by what they're wearing or if/where they choose to grow body hair? It seems odd that you'd make fun of someone for their own personal grooming choices when they don't affect you in the slightest.
This is nonsense. Chemo can impact your immune system, but doesn't always. The FDA and FBI aren't going to arrest/shoot you if you find a cure for a specific type of cancer; they are all people too. They're lost relatives, friends, etc. to cancer, and may have it themselves.
people want cures, not treatment, because a cure means the problem is *gone*. Asides from not having to deal with the disease anymore, they don't have to worry about the side effects of the "treatment" (there are always side effects, and the treatments are never full solutions - both the side effects and the disease itself continue to impact one's day-to-day life). Who the heck would want that? Much, much better to actually get rid of the disease completely.
I agree, it's better to get rid of the disease completely, but it's often orders of magnitude harder to cure rather than treat. We don't know how to cure diabetes yet, and the only things we know about that make the disease burden less are things the patient controls; diet, exercise, etc.
As for "imprinted in the genes from birth to death" that is malarkey. Most of the genes in every person's makeup are never actually *expressed*, so the idea that because the potential for something is in one's genes means it cannot be suppressed is just silly. In addition, modern research has demonstrated that one's genes change over the course of one's life (there has been research on identical twins and longitudinal studies on individuals that demonstrate genetic drift over time). Genes are *not* constant.
Well, you're wrong about a whole lot of things here. Most genes are expressed; most DNA is not. There's a crucial difference there. Moreover, if the potential is there (say, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) that increases your risk for cancer), we can't suppress that, not yet. It's actually easier to correct large changes (think hemophilia) than such small ones. Lastly, genes, for the most part don't meaningfully change. The longitudinal studies on twins that you're thinking of do not show genes changing over time; they show changing of the epigenetic marks, which sometimes regulate genes. The actual code mutates, but not much, and - except for cancer - not in a large enough proportion to cause disease.
"Question the priorities and approaches of mainstream western medicine through the lens of a more holistic approach to health."
There are actual ethical problems with the priorities of mainstream western medicine though. The profit motive drives companies to seek 'treatments' rather than 'cures'.
People say this all the time, but they get it wrong. The main reason why people work towards treatments is that they're much easier to do. It's relatively easy to treat, say, hemophilia; it's a lot harder to cure it (although we are making progress there). You might find a drug - from a plant, maybe - that happens to help people with bipolar disorder. Maybe you don't know much about how it works; we don't even really know much about why some diseases (especially mental disorders) happen. Until we do, we can't really cure them.
Free markets don't exist. they need an infinite amount of land, resources, perfect and complete information for all players on this market.
That's not true. They need perfect and complete information for perfect efficiency, but they still function pretty well as long as there's some information. Moreover, infinite land and resources would remove scarcity. It would be just as accurate to say that communism requires infinite land and resources to work.
This is a load of bullshit. Globalization hasn't meaningfully changed the unemployment rate, and moving lower-paying jobs to other countries helps a lot of people. It helps the people in those countries - they have more money to spend and build their own economies, and start developing their infrastructure more. It helps the companies, yes, but it also helps the lower classes because things are cheaper. They shift into service-oriented jobs instead of manufacturing jobs.
Why this got +5 Insightful is beyond me; it's just standard rhetoric without grounding in economic fact.
Nobody should get rape and death threats online. That being said, the harassment was a very small - but vocal - minority in the GG tag. Plenty of GGers called out people who harassed others. There's also a pretty big difference between telling someone to die and actually threatening to kill them, but lots of people overlook that. You might want to look up the #NotYourShield tag; there were plenty of women and blacks supporting GG there.
I personally wasn't involved in GG - while I play games, I don't really care about game journalism, nor do I wish to harass anyone online - but it seems silly that it was such a big deal and nobody represents it right.
Right, like how the Iraqis and Afghanis were utterly crushed when the Western powers invaded, right? Oh, an armed populace is still effective against a military that doesn't want to wage total war? Hmm...
Presumably it would be part of the executive branch, as it is in charge of executing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Assuming the legislative branch passed laws mandating (or at least allowing) such a car production line, it would likely fall under the executive branch to actually do that.
Do you have a citation for the involvement of the "German Ministry of War"? I've seen their finance people talking about this, but nothing from anything resembling a Ministry of War.
I think people should be able to direct the growth of their neighborhood, but only so much; in a city like SF, with property values skyrocketing, landlords do have to raise rents by a lot, and while it sucks for the people who have to move, it's also partly their fault. It isn't an easy problem to solve, but it would help if people at least knew what's going on and accepted that if you block new construction, prices will go up.
Slashdot Mirror
Five is a very manageable number for some things. Dengue, which has four main strains, has still been a problem. They are making progress with it, but it has been challenging. This is partly because insufficient protection against one strain (antibodies that bind somewhat but don't neutralize the virus enough) can actually make the disease more severe and increase the lethality. This is mostly unique to dengue though; I don't think it applies to malaria as well.
That's not true; if fewer people get the disease, fewer mosquitoes pick it up, which means fewer people spreading it. Having an animal vector makes it harder to wipe out a disease with herd immunity, but not impossible, especially since malaria needs both humans and mosquitoes to reproduce.
If you're trying to make money off of vaccines - especially a malaria vaccine, which would mostly be useful in underdeveloped (and poor) countries - you're not good at business.
Well, after it's been in the ground long enough, it doesn't contain carbon-14 any more, because it decayed to nitrogen. If you use carbon dating on those, there isn't enough left to get an accurate reading, which is exactly what you'd expect to happen.
Carbon dating isn't used for things older than about 100,000 years. Anything older than that uses other radioisotypes to determine age, which don't vary with atmospheric composition.
No, that only affects carbon dating. Most fossils are far too old to use carbon dating, as C14 has a relatively short half-life (compared to geologic timescales). As such, fossil dating shouldn't be affected.
Well, from the article, it seems like these were different job openings, which may have had different requirements each time, meeting with different people to gauge her fit with the group, etc. That's hardly a bad fuck-up. Remember that this was four times across seven years, and they mentioned the previous interviews when saying they wanted to talk to her about a new position.
No, in the US today, we really are trying to not even give merit to those that do excel despite today's education system. I think I read the other day about a high school that had something like 50+ valedictorians...?? WTF? Afraid to hurt someones feelings that they didn't make the cut?
There was a high school near me who did that. Everyone with at least a 3.8 GPA (IIRC) was a valedictorian. I thought it was a stupid idea.
I mean, you could already create a list of your female friends and make certain posts only visible to them, so those weren't the only options. This new thing will make it easier, but they had the option before that.
Using "SJW" as a pejorative doesn't mean one is against social justice. "SJW" is supposed to refer to someone who follows feelings more than facts, who believes everything a woman/PoC says about being harassed (as long as it fits their agenda, otherwise they have "internalized misogyny/racism"); they're also pretty much just keyboard warriors who don't fact-check. They're the sort who look at the many injustices in the world and then want to push them too far in the other direction; they idealize and fetishize the oppressed. It's perfectly reasonable to be against this sort of outlook while still advocating for actual social justice.
That being said, there are plenty of people who get mislabeled as SJWs. Social justice is a great thing, and we should strive for it (because we clearly haven't gotten there yet). I think using "SJW" to refer to those sort of people was a mistake, but that's where things are right now.
Some drunk people may choose not to take an Uber/Lyft because of surge pricing, but there's also traditional cabs. I don't think Uber or Lyft is going to increase the number of drunk drivers compared to what the situation is without them.
Hasn't a large part of feminism's push recently been to not judge people by what they're wearing or if/where they choose to grow body hair? It seems odd that you'd make fun of someone for their own personal grooming choices when they don't affect you in the slightest.
umm.....I know a lot of cabbies. None of them have 401ks or health insurance.
Cab companies don't hire 'full time' employees with benefits etc. Go talk to a cabby and stop making shit up.
That was the point.
This is nonsense. Chemo can impact your immune system, but doesn't always. The FDA and FBI aren't going to arrest/shoot you if you find a cure for a specific type of cancer; they are all people too. They're lost relatives, friends, etc. to cancer, and may have it themselves.
people want cures, not treatment, because a cure means the problem is *gone*. Asides from not having to deal with the disease anymore, they don't have to worry about the side effects of the "treatment" (there are always side effects, and the treatments are never full solutions - both the side effects and the disease itself continue to impact one's day-to-day life). Who the heck would want that? Much, much better to actually get rid of the disease completely.
I agree, it's better to get rid of the disease completely, but it's often orders of magnitude harder to cure rather than treat. We don't know how to cure diabetes yet, and the only things we know about that make the disease burden less are things the patient controls; diet, exercise, etc.
As for "imprinted in the genes from birth to death" that is malarkey. Most of the genes in every person's makeup are never actually *expressed*, so the idea that because the potential for something is in one's genes means it cannot be suppressed is just silly. In addition, modern research has demonstrated that one's genes change over the course of one's life (there has been research on identical twins and longitudinal studies on individuals that demonstrate genetic drift over time). Genes are *not* constant.
Well, you're wrong about a whole lot of things here. Most genes are expressed; most DNA is not. There's a crucial difference there. Moreover, if the potential is there (say, a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) that increases your risk for cancer), we can't suppress that, not yet. It's actually easier to correct large changes (think hemophilia) than such small ones. Lastly, genes, for the most part don't meaningfully change. The longitudinal studies on twins that you're thinking of do not show genes changing over time; they show changing of the epigenetic marks, which sometimes regulate genes. The actual code mutates, but not much, and - except for cancer - not in a large enough proportion to cause disease.
"Question the priorities and approaches of mainstream western medicine through the lens of a more holistic approach to health."
There are actual ethical problems with the priorities of mainstream western medicine though. The profit motive drives companies to seek 'treatments' rather than 'cures'.
People say this all the time, but they get it wrong. The main reason why people work towards treatments is that they're much easier to do. It's relatively easy to treat, say, hemophilia; it's a lot harder to cure it (although we are making progress there). You might find a drug - from a plant, maybe - that happens to help people with bipolar disorder. Maybe you don't know much about how it works; we don't even really know much about why some diseases (especially mental disorders) happen. Until we do, we can't really cure them.
Sorry, were you trying to imply that homeopathy is based on physics? Because it very much isn't.
Capitalism only works when you have free markets
Free markets don't exist. they need an infinite amount of land, resources, perfect and complete information for all players on this market.
That's not true. They need perfect and complete information for perfect efficiency, but they still function pretty well as long as there's some information. Moreover, infinite land and resources would remove scarcity. It would be just as accurate to say that communism requires infinite land and resources to work.
This is a load of bullshit. Globalization hasn't meaningfully changed the unemployment rate, and moving lower-paying jobs to other countries helps a lot of people. It helps the people in those countries - they have more money to spend and build their own economies, and start developing their infrastructure more. It helps the companies, yes, but it also helps the lower classes because things are cheaper. They shift into service-oriented jobs instead of manufacturing jobs.
Why this got +5 Insightful is beyond me; it's just standard rhetoric without grounding in economic fact.
Nobody should get rape and death threats online. That being said, the harassment was a very small - but vocal - minority in the GG tag. Plenty of GGers called out people who harassed others. There's also a pretty big difference between telling someone to die and actually threatening to kill them, but lots of people overlook that. You might want to look up the #NotYourShield tag; there were plenty of women and blacks supporting GG there.
I personally wasn't involved in GG - while I play games, I don't really care about game journalism, nor do I wish to harass anyone online - but it seems silly that it was such a big deal and nobody represents it right.
Oh, and by no coincidence whatsoever, the US states with the tightest gun-control laws are also the ones with the lowest rates of gun-related deaths.
This in particular seems wrong to me; Chicago has very tight laws but pretty high rates of gun homicides.
Right, like how the Iraqis and Afghanis were utterly crushed when the Western powers invaded, right? Oh, an armed populace is still effective against a military that doesn't want to wage total war? Hmm...
Presumably it would be part of the executive branch, as it is in charge of executing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Assuming the legislative branch passed laws mandating (or at least allowing) such a car production line, it would likely fall under the executive branch to actually do that.
Do you have a citation for the involvement of the "German Ministry of War"? I've seen their finance people talking about this, but nothing from anything resembling a Ministry of War.
I think people should be able to direct the growth of their neighborhood, but only so much; in a city like SF, with property values skyrocketing, landlords do have to raise rents by a lot, and while it sucks for the people who have to move, it's also partly their fault. It isn't an easy problem to solve, but it would help if people at least knew what's going on and accepted that if you block new construction, prices will go up.