Well, if it had been sufficiently profitable, then you can bet the capitalists drug companies would have been all over it!
Merck has licensed the technology and is currently commercializing it.
So the obvious question is whether they got an exclusive license, or even control over any patents involved. Or maybe they don't care that much since the risky and expensive parts are already taken care of?
Hmm... I hadn't really thought about that angle of approach because I don't regard the First Lady as having much importance. I'd even say that was a negative factor on Hillary's resume, but in Trump's case I can now see how he would tout it as a qualification for naming her as VP.
I can sympathize with your having a hard time imaging him running in 2020. I still can't believe he ran seriously this year.
Actually I would say that usenet did foster some sense of community, especially in technical areas. The early trolls did hurt it, for example when they cross-linked the save-the-whales group, but it managed to do pretty well for a long time. Still hard to believe it has died... I think the killer was that no profits to be made.
Insightful? If I ever got a mod point to give, yours would have been funny, for sure, for sure.
Anyway, I keep trying to imagine some constructive response to the Donald. This [the extremely conspicuous consumption topic of the article] was not it.
On the one hand, I want to regard Trump as a short term problem. Excellent chance he'll get Bill-Cosby-ed out of office within a few months. If he lives up to his Gettysburg promise and sues all of them, then he'll be forced to confess or perjure himself. If he doesn't sue them, then all of the other women will start selling their Donald stories when the values skyrocket next month. Maybe Trump can blow off the sexual predator tag, but Bill Cosby used to be far more popular than Trump ever was.
On the other hand, things could be much worse. Pence as president is bad, but Trump dumping Pence in 2020 and making Ivanka his VP would be much worse... If she became president, I guess that would mean America had become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump organization, whatever that is.
Point of clarification: How many times did Trump buy full-page ads about "social problems"? Was the Central Park Jogger thing just a one off?
Gotta run now, but I should have mentioned Dunbar's number in my earlier response to your post about your sister having 1,500 friends >> 150. Just checked and it doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere around here...
Deserves the insightful mod. Overall seems to be an almost surprising discussion for today's Slashdot. Maybe the trolls are on Christmas break?
Anyway, I think some of the problem you are addressing is due to oversimplification. Friendship is a rich and multidimensional concept, but Facebook collapses the meaning of the word. I actually think Google had a better idea, but the complexity made it unusable... I feel like repeating my old suggestion as to how something better could be implemented on Facebook, but lack the time and energy this morning, so I'm just going to drop the hint that it should give a default display of a single dimension while allowing for deeper dimensionality to be recorded and displayed upon requests.
Looking forward to studying the discussion in more detail when I have some time, hopefully this afternoon.
Well, I think I mostly agree with you, but I also think the 'social quality' of Slashdot has declined substantially over the years. Not just limited to Slashdot, but when we first started this computer-supported social-networking stuff it was mostly as support for face-to-face social gatherings. In those days the hub nodes were called BBSes, and most of the major ones sponsored periodic gatherings or at least occasional parties. Getting fuzzy from so long ago, but I think there were weekly Lep Lunches and monthly meetings of the Dull Men's Club, and a variety of other meetings of various kinds... This was back in Austin in the '80s...
Don't know the demographics, but I suspect a majority of today's Slashdotters hadn't been born yet.
I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals. My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.
Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.
Could technology help solve these problems rather than make them worse? I think so, but it would require different economic models than are currently being used. In the worst-case example of Facebook, the primary metric driving their "success" has nothing to do with improving your social life or helping you find real friends (not to be confused with whatever Facebook means by their increasingly bizarre use of that word). Facebook just wants you to waste as much time as possible on their website.
You knew the low-hanging fruit had to be harvested, eh? Like all those sour celebrities that Trump didn't even want to show up at his little ceremony next month...
On the actual article, the process sounds quite a bit like the way they replicate DNA for analysis, but I don't understand the disease mechanism well enough to understand if that's really a good description of what they are doing. The notion of any diagnostic test that is completely reliable but which isn't working at the DNA level seems hard for me to buy into...
Apple actually started at the other extreme of openness and open architecture. It was a hacker culture in those days and the idea was that not only could you understand the inside, but more power to you. Diversity was encouraged, and the employees even coined their own job titles.
It was really the Mac that led the transition to the closed-box closed-mind approach. That led to the... Not sure what to call it. The worst possible kind of endorsement? An anti-endorsement? Imitation as the nastiest form of flattery? The adoption of your strategy by the most evil entity? At that time it was Microsoft, but I'm not sure when Windows became fully closed and "Trust our black box to have nothing but good things inside it". These days I rather doubt that Microsoft is even in the top 10 for evil, though they are still "a contender" of sorts.
You seem to worship profit as your Mammon. I think there are other goals in life, but honest labor and cost recovery are no longer good enough. If your company doesn't become the biggest and most EVIL in the valley of death, then you get crushed. However, problems without solutions are meaningless to me, and the "problem" of insufficient profit is not solvable. Whatever number your profit reaches, there's always a bigger number out there.
Of course I'm mostly hoping for funny comments (as of days of yore), but in the case of this specific article I was hoping to find something about the possible causes of the variability in battery life. The mention of Safari was quite speculative, but I guess it isn't the job of Consumer Reports to diagnose the problems, just find them?
Anyway, for what it's worth, I have a long history with Apple, but as of this writing I do not anticipate any future purchase from Apple. The company is now dedicated to monolithic Apple-style thinking, which I find rather humorous considering the slogan of their most famous advertising campaign. Anything resembling criticism of Apple is now regarded as double-plus-ungood. Shut uppa your mouth!
I'm not sure how much to blame Apple. I think it is the American laws that basically require big companies to become increasingly evil in order to survive. Being an evil company is not a guarantee of success and huge profits, but being a nice company has become an absolute guarantee of failure, usually via acquisition. (My current list of examples includes NetScape, Palm, Sun, and Nokia.)
I'll check back later, though my hope of finding truly funny comments is fading these years.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if it had been sufficiently profitable, then you can bet the capitalists drug companies would have been all over it!
Merck has licensed the technology and is currently commercializing it.
So the obvious question is whether they got an exclusive license, or even control over any patents involved. Or maybe they don't care that much since the risky and expensive parts are already taken care of?
Hmm... I hadn't really thought about that angle of approach because I don't regard the First Lady as having much importance. I'd even say that was a negative factor on Hillary's resume, but in Trump's case I can now see how he would tout it as a qualification for naming her as VP.
I can sympathize with your having a hard time imaging him running in 2020. I still can't believe he ran seriously this year.
I'm TUSAD now. (Trump-Underlying Stress Anxiety Disorder)
Actually I would say that usenet did foster some sense of community, especially in technical areas. The early trolls did hurt it, for example when they cross-linked the save-the-whales group, but it managed to do pretty well for a long time. Still hard to believe it has died... I think the killer was that no profits to be made.
ZZ
ZZ
Z^10
Z^11
Z^10
Well, if it had been sufficiently profitable, then you can bet the capitalists drug companies would have been all over it!
Unfortunately, one-shot cures and vaccines are much less profitable than developing drugs for chronic and incurable diseases.
Insightful? If I ever got a mod point to give, yours would have been funny, for sure, for sure.
Anyway, I keep trying to imagine some constructive response to the Donald. This [the extremely conspicuous consumption topic of the article] was not it.
On the one hand, I want to regard Trump as a short term problem. Excellent chance he'll get Bill-Cosby-ed out of office within a few months. If he lives up to his Gettysburg promise and sues all of them, then he'll be forced to confess or perjure himself. If he doesn't sue them, then all of the other women will start selling their Donald stories when the values skyrocket next month. Maybe Trump can blow off the sexual predator tag, but Bill Cosby used to be far more popular than Trump ever was.
On the other hand, things could be much worse. Pence as president is bad, but Trump dumping Pence in 2020 and making Ivanka his VP would be much worse... If she became president, I guess that would mean America had become a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump organization, whatever that is.
Point of clarification: How many times did Trump buy full-page ads about "social problems"? Was the Central Park Jogger thing just a one off?
Gotta run now, but I should have mentioned Dunbar's number in my earlier response to your post about your sister having 1,500 friends >> 150. Just checked and it doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere around here...
Deserves the insightful mod. Overall seems to be an almost surprising discussion for today's Slashdot. Maybe the trolls are on Christmas break?
Anyway, I think some of the problem you are addressing is due to oversimplification. Friendship is a rich and multidimensional concept, but Facebook collapses the meaning of the word. I actually think Google had a better idea, but the complexity made it unusable... I feel like repeating my old suggestion as to how something better could be implemented on Facebook, but lack the time and energy this morning, so I'm just going to drop the hint that it should give a default display of a single dimension while allowing for deeper dimensionality to be recorded and displayed upon requests.
Looking forward to studying the discussion in more detail when I have some time, hopefully this afternoon.
I think I feel sorry for your sister, but for you I recommend reading The Shallows . Or maybe you could just clarify what you think "connection" means?
I really did think you were going for the funny mod, but as things stand, I guess I'm supposed to hope you didn't get it?
Well, I think I mostly agree with you, but I also think the 'social quality' of Slashdot has declined substantially over the years. Not just limited to Slashdot, but when we first started this computer-supported social-networking stuff it was mostly as support for face-to-face social gatherings. In those days the hub nodes were called BBSes, and most of the major ones sponsored periodic gatherings or at least occasional parties. Getting fuzzy from so long ago, but I think there were weekly Lep Lunches and monthly meetings of the Dull Men's Club, and a variety of other meetings of various kinds... This was back in Austin in the '80s...
Don't know the demographics, but I suspect a majority of today's Slashdotters hadn't been born yet.
Z^9
Z^9
Z^8
I'm sure you're going for the funny mod, and I hope you get it, but you're on the edge of insight, too. Superficial network-mediated social relationships are no substitute for the real thing, and human beings are extremely social animals. My joke on the topic (from many years ago) is that too much computer usage is not good for your mental health.
Slashdot is quite bad, but Facebook is vastly worse.
Could technology help solve these problems rather than make them worse? I think so, but it would require different economic models than are currently being used. In the worst-case example of Facebook, the primary metric driving their "success" has nothing to do with improving your social life or helping you find real friends (not to be confused with whatever Facebook means by their increasingly bizarre use of that word). Facebook just wants you to waste as much time as possible on their website.
Z^8
Z^7
Z^6
You knew the low-hanging fruit had to be harvested, eh? Like all those sour celebrities that Trump didn't even want to show up at his little ceremony next month...
On the actual article, the process sounds quite a bit like the way they replicate DNA for analysis, but I don't understand the disease mechanism well enough to understand if that's really a good description of what they are doing. The notion of any diagnostic test that is completely reliable but which isn't working at the DNA level seems hard for me to buy into...
You must be new here? Ever heard of the Woz?
Apple actually started at the other extreme of openness and open architecture. It was a hacker culture in those days and the idea was that not only could you understand the inside, but more power to you. Diversity was encouraged, and the employees even coined their own job titles.
It was really the Mac that led the transition to the closed-box closed-mind approach. That led to the... Not sure what to call it. The worst possible kind of endorsement? An anti-endorsement? Imitation as the nastiest form of flattery? The adoption of your strategy by the most evil entity? At that time it was Microsoft, but I'm not sure when Windows became fully closed and "Trust our black box to have nothing but good things inside it". These days I rather doubt that Microsoft is even in the top 10 for evil, though they are still "a contender" of sorts.
You seem to worship profit as your Mammon. I think there are other goals in life, but honest labor and cost recovery are no longer good enough. If your company doesn't become the biggest and most EVIL in the valley of death, then you get crushed. However, problems without solutions are meaningless to me, and the "problem" of insufficient profit is not solvable. Whatever number your profit reaches, there's always a bigger number out there.
Of course I'm mostly hoping for funny comments (as of days of yore), but in the case of this specific article I was hoping to find something about the possible causes of the variability in battery life. The mention of Safari was quite speculative, but I guess it isn't the job of Consumer Reports to diagnose the problems, just find them?
Anyway, for what it's worth, I have a long history with Apple, but as of this writing I do not anticipate any future purchase from Apple. The company is now dedicated to monolithic Apple-style thinking, which I find rather humorous considering the slogan of their most famous advertising campaign. Anything resembling criticism of Apple is now regarded as double-plus-ungood. Shut uppa your mouth!
I'm not sure how much to blame Apple. I think it is the American laws that basically require big companies to become increasingly evil in order to survive. Being an evil company is not a guarantee of success and huge profits, but being a nice company has become an absolute guarantee of failure, usually via acquisition. (My current list of examples includes NetScape, Palm, Sun, and Nokia.)
I'll check back later, though my hope of finding truly funny comments is fading these years.
Z^5