Putting DNA directly into the freezer is not recommended, but you can "freeze" it with formalin and then embed it in paraffin for longterm storage (FFPE). This works fine for DNA, and is used all over the world for biobanking.
I'd recommend taking a biopsy though, from a stable region (not sun-drenched skin).
Let me extrapolate a little to make the CEO-talk clearer.
heartbroken = "I'm heartbroken I got caught" monetises = scams / profiteers side-business = shady shit we don't want our front-business associated with. aggregated data = Doesn't include your name explicitly. unsubscribing = Acquiring a profiteering middle-man to skim some of that money off the top. explicit enough = details hidden in the fine print, page 233 of the TOS. free service = not free, we are doing exactly what you used our service to prevent. It was heartbreaking to see that some of our users were upset to learn about how we monetize our free service = You weren't supposed to find out. we need to do better for our users = we're gonna keep doing what we're doing.
This seems like the kind of problem that could potentially give a certain Zucker the power to decide who wins what election and so forth.
If the government should not have the power to censor or direct the flow of information, shouldn't a similar rule be applied to corporations with equal or greater (non-military) power?
I have always assumed the censorship law reflected the balance of power at the time (i.e. there was no other entity that came close to matching the civil power of the government, hence the government had to be "kind" to other opinions), and had Facebook or social media been around then, similar clauses would have been made for them.
Old - 2 million new customers, 1 million of which will be getting buttfucked by monopoly. New - 2 million victims, all getting buttfucked.
Like everything else Trump and his cronies have done, it always revolves around his rich industry buddies buttfucking the disadvantaged guy at the bottom. I don't know about you, but I would rather pick the trend where customers don't get buttfucked at all (unless they enjoy that sort of thing).
And let's not pretend that the "2 million customers" is there for any other reason than provide the argument you just made.
Wait, are you telling me that once again Trump *didn't* help his voters in favor of his rich business associates? You know, this together with the gutting of the FCC and the EPA almost, *almost*, makes me think that he's not trying that hard to make America great again.
I know you can't see my face right now, but if you could, it would have a look of surprise.
So what you're saying is that *your* wild conspiracy theory is more probable than his? And then adding a Trumpesque straw man in for good measure? How exactly did you picture that argument going in your head?
What *is* far more likely is that
a) the verification badge has at some point started to mean something more/other than just a verification of the person behind the account. This is not unusual, it happens with symbols all the time (Southern Flag -> Jim Crow stuff, Swastika -> Nazi stuff, Viking symbols -> Nazi stuff). And b) someone with the power to remove those badges felt that Milo didn't deserve one since he was an asshat.
Wow, that didn't require any wild conspiracy theories *or* behavior outside the norm *or* an asylum of SJWs (or whatever a group of SJWs is called). I would even call it probable given the bias we see on the Twitter safety council. It's remarkable how straightforward life can be when you don't wear glasses made of ideology, eh?
Furthermore, it is quite telling that Twitter punished notorious troll and agitator Milo Yiannopoulos by removing his verified tag. Why would they do that if the tag was only there to assert that the account was in fact verified as belonging to the real Milo Yiannopoulos?
I didn't even think of that, since I got the first review from http://www.tomshardware.com/ne... where they use a 6900K. However, since an 1800X costs about half of the 6900K I don't think it's fair to consider them competing in the same segment.
That's it for me. I was holding out on AMD specifically because I was worried about the gaming performance. I know it's a small leap of faith at this point, but everything is starting to look great with AMD's latest series.
The earlier benchmarks showed AMD pretty much taking the crown in everything *except* gaming (and I do a fair bit of scientific computing on my home machine), and if these results are possible (1800X performing on par with a 7700K in gaming) then I have no reason to go with Intel. My next purchase will be a Ryzen 7 cpu (all of which performed similarly in gaming tests), something I hope will help me, AMD, and every consumer out there due to the competition finally revving up again.
Now to see if AMD's Vega architecture can compete with nVidia's price-dropped GTX 1080.
It's about time someone finally stood up to the poor people. Thank God for Pai and his ISP cronies, once again making America safe from anything left of Ayn Rand.
Imagine the trouble the poor people could cause if they actually broke out of the debt-swamp?
Reading TFA explains my confusion when reading the summary.
1. Nothing in the summary is new, nor even remotely new. Splicing via recombinase has been done a long time ago, and the biology howto isn't anything novel either. 2. The article is actually titled "Large-scale design of robust genetic circuits with multiple inputs and outputs for mammalian cells". The novel component is that the authors claim their circuitry construction is easier and more robust than previous approaches that required multi-layered edits for the same effects. Whether or not this is true I cannot say. The validation experiments are a bunch of these edits, one part creating logical circuits and one part creating on/off switches for stuff biologists like, such as CRISPR-Cas9, or a whole slew of fluorescent proteins (they look great in a microscope). 3. The general take-away is that gene-editing has become so easy and cheap that these studies and uses are becoming feasible.
Why is this rated -1? Cost is a damn strong motivator to general adoption, and the absolute first thing that comes to mind as a barricade to entry in the current energy market.
Cost might not be the only thing that matters, but any energy source today must fulfill one of two criteria -
1. Cheap. For personal use (such as solar panels on the roof of a house) the barrier to entry is price. Your standard homeowner only has $X saved up, so even a super-efficient solar panel for $250,000 will remain out of reach. A cheap-ass solar panel of low efficiency for $1,000 though? That is what makes the energy companies complain (and lobby for bans). 2. A high power to cost ratio. The west is starting to drown in wind-parks. The energy is there, but building a wind-turbine out in nowhere is expensive, and the energy output is damn low. Coupled with the erratic performance of wind ( and solar to a lesser extent), and you will need a(n expensive) backup source to meet demand. Don't expect to get your money back quickly. And that's not even counting the protesting or zoning laws you will face before construction can begin.
And because of those, the parent asked a very pertinent quetion - What does it cost? Because that determines what, if any, role can the panel fulfill in our current energy market.
And I'm sure a lot of people think that way. But it is unfortunately not something we are capable of handling.
I bet you want to fund successful startup companies too, right? Everyone does. There are thousands upon thousands of incubators and investment funds that spend a lot of time trying to filter out the good startups from the bad startups. And do you know how many startup companies go on to succeed? About 1 in 10. That's *after* filtering.
The same applies to science. You are not alone in wanting good, solid, applicable science. But filtering the good from the bad, something that is done on a daily basis in the form of grant applications and directed funding, is not something we can do with any notable degree of success.
In short, if you want good science, you need to fund *all* science, and then pick your diamonds in the dirt. Sure, you can cut the obvious stupidity, like "why do pigeons poop on some statues more than others?", but can you tell the winner from "predicting likelihood of prostate cancer from inherited mutations in Chromosome 7 and X" and "Reducing infectious surfaces in surgical scar tissue by use of mammalian lactoferrin-adhesives" ? I sure can't. I think it's hard, and the fact we have so many dead ends in science tells me others also find it hard.
This is the second time you've managed to only grasp the literal meaning. I'm starting to suspect your legal guardian needs additional training for the job.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like Ajit wasn't invited to the latest meeting at Mt. Doom.
Putting DNA directly into the freezer is not recommended, but you can "freeze" it with formalin and then embed it in paraffin for longterm storage (FFPE). This works fine for DNA, and is used all over the world for biobanking.
I'd recommend taking a biopsy though, from a stable region (not sun-drenched skin).
So, Mr Potato Head?
I've wanted to put a camera in your bedroom for years, but where's my article?
Let me extrapolate a little to make the CEO-talk clearer.
heartbroken = "I'm heartbroken I got caught"
monetises = scams / profiteers
side-business = shady shit we don't want our front-business associated with.
aggregated data = Doesn't include your name explicitly.
unsubscribing = Acquiring a profiteering middle-man to skim some of that money off the top.
explicit enough = details hidden in the fine print, page 233 of the TOS.
free service = not free, we are doing exactly what you used our service to prevent.
It was heartbreaking to see that some of our users were upset to learn about how we monetize our free service = You weren't supposed to find out.
we need to do better for our users = we're gonna keep doing what we're doing.
Hope this helps.
This seems like the kind of problem that could potentially give a certain Zucker the power to decide who wins what election and so forth.
If the government should not have the power to censor or direct the flow of information, shouldn't a similar rule be applied to corporations with equal or greater (non-military) power?
I have always assumed the censorship law reflected the balance of power at the time (i.e. there was no other entity that came close to matching the civil power of the government, hence the government had to be "kind" to other opinions), and had Facebook or social media been around then, similar clauses would have been made for them.
Is this still planet Earth, or did I take a wrong turn somewhere? Not even Soviet Russia is sufficient to explain this deranged and tortured argument.
Ahh, yes.
Old - 2 million new customers, 1 million of which will be getting buttfucked by monopoly.
New - 2 million victims, all getting buttfucked.
Like everything else Trump and his cronies have done, it always revolves around his rich industry buddies buttfucking the disadvantaged guy at the bottom.
I don't know about you, but I would rather pick the trend where customers don't get buttfucked at all (unless they enjoy that sort of thing).
And let's not pretend that the "2 million customers" is there for any other reason than provide the argument you just made.
autistic characters have now even been added to the new Power Rangers movie and on Sesame Street.
And also Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Wait, are you telling me that once again Trump *didn't* help his voters in favor of his rich business associates? You know, this together with the gutting of the FCC and the EPA almost, *almost*, makes me think that he's not trying that hard to make America great again.
I know you can't see my face right now, but if you could, it would have a look of surprise.
So what you're saying is that *your* wild conspiracy theory is more probable than his? And then adding a Trumpesque straw man in for good measure? How exactly did you picture that argument going in your head?
What *is* far more likely is that
a) the verification badge has at some point started to mean something more/other than just a verification of the person behind the account. This is not unusual, it happens with symbols all the time (Southern Flag -> Jim Crow stuff, Swastika -> Nazi stuff, Viking symbols -> Nazi stuff). And
b) someone with the power to remove those badges felt that Milo didn't deserve one since he was an asshat.
Wow, that didn't require any wild conspiracy theories *or* behavior outside the norm *or* an asylum of SJWs (or whatever a group of SJWs is called). I would even call it probable given the bias we see on the Twitter safety council. It's remarkable how straightforward life can be when you don't wear glasses made of ideology, eh?
The biases of Twitter can be quite easily seen by looking at the "Safety Council", tasked with keeping Twitter free of undesireables.
( https://about.twitter.com/safe... )
Furthermore, it is quite telling that Twitter punished notorious troll and agitator Milo Yiannopoulos by removing his verified tag. Why would they do that if the tag was only there to assert that the account was in fact verified as belonging to the real Milo Yiannopoulos?
I didn't even think of that, since I got the first review from http://www.tomshardware.com/ne... where they use a 6900K. However, since an 1800X costs about half of the 6900K I don't think it's fair to consider them competing in the same segment.
That's it for me. I was holding out on AMD specifically because I was worried about the gaming performance. I know it's a small leap of faith at this point, but everything is starting to look great with AMD's latest series.
The earlier benchmarks showed AMD pretty much taking the crown in everything *except* gaming (and I do a fair bit of scientific computing on my home machine), and if these results are possible (1800X performing on par with a 7700K in gaming) then I have no reason to go with Intel.
My next purchase will be a Ryzen 7 cpu (all of which performed similarly in gaming tests), something I hope will help me, AMD, and every consumer out there due to the competition finally revving up again.
Now to see if AMD's Vega architecture can compete with nVidia's price-dropped GTX 1080.
It's about time someone finally stood up to the poor people. Thank God for Pai and his ISP cronies, once again making America safe from anything left of Ayn Rand.
Imagine the trouble the poor people could cause if they actually broke out of the debt-swamp?
Reading TFA explains my confusion when reading the summary.
1. Nothing in the summary is new, nor even remotely new. Splicing via recombinase has been done a long time ago, and the biology howto isn't anything novel either.
2. The article is actually titled "Large-scale design of robust genetic circuits with multiple inputs and outputs for mammalian cells". The novel component is that the authors claim their circuitry construction is easier and more robust than previous approaches that required multi-layered edits for the same effects. Whether or not this is true I cannot say. The validation experiments are a bunch of these edits, one part creating logical circuits and one part creating on/off switches for stuff biologists like, such as CRISPR-Cas9, or a whole slew of fluorescent proteins (they look great in a microscope).
3. The general take-away is that gene-editing has become so easy and cheap that these studies and uses are becoming feasible.
I don't know why, but I read that as "handicapped single-player stall".
Why is this rated -1? Cost is a damn strong motivator to general adoption, and the absolute first thing that comes to mind as a barricade to entry in the current energy market.
Cost might not be the only thing that matters, but any energy source today must fulfill one of two criteria -
1. Cheap. For personal use (such as solar panels on the roof of a house) the barrier to entry is price. Your standard homeowner only has $X saved up, so even a super-efficient solar panel for $250,000 will remain out of reach. A cheap-ass solar panel of low efficiency for $1,000 though? That is what makes the energy companies complain (and lobby for bans).
2. A high power to cost ratio. The west is starting to drown in wind-parks. The energy is there, but building a wind-turbine out in nowhere is expensive, and the energy output is damn low. Coupled with the erratic performance of wind ( and solar to a lesser extent), and you will need a(n expensive) backup source to meet demand. Don't expect to get your money back quickly. And that's not even counting the protesting or zoning laws you will face before construction can begin.
And because of those, the parent asked a very pertinent quetion - What does it cost? Because that determines what, if any, role can the panel fulfill in our current energy market.
First it was "literal isn't literal" and now Goodenough isn't good enough?
And I'm sure a lot of people think that way. But it is unfortunately not something we are capable of handling.
I bet you want to fund successful startup companies too, right? Everyone does. There are thousands upon thousands of incubators and investment funds that spend a lot of time trying to filter out the good startups from the bad startups. And do you know how many startup companies go on to succeed? About 1 in 10. That's *after* filtering.
The same applies to science. You are not alone in wanting good, solid, applicable science. But filtering the good from the bad, something that is done on a daily basis in the form of grant applications and directed funding, is not something we can do with any notable degree of success.
In short, if you want good science, you need to fund *all* science, and then pick your diamonds in the dirt. Sure, you can cut the obvious stupidity, like "why do pigeons poop on some statues more than others?", but can you tell the winner from "predicting likelihood of prostate cancer from inherited mutations in Chromosome 7 and X" and "Reducing infectious surfaces in surgical scar tissue by use of mammalian lactoferrin-adhesives" ? I sure can't. I think it's hard, and the fact we have so many dead ends in science tells me others also find it hard.
What the fuck so you want?
Better communication skills?
You do realize that calling the people who want to fund science and education "stupid" reflects somewhat poorly on your cognitive faculties?
This is the second time you've managed to only grasp the literal meaning. I'm starting to suspect your legal guardian needs additional training for the job.
Yikes, I can smell the butthurt from here. Adding in that you're a self-declared enemy of fun doesn't help portray you in any better light.
Keep telling yourself that, buddy.
You took a clearly tongue-in-cheek response and treated it like something absolutely serious in order to get offended. This is Tumblr-grade offense.
Speaking of that, please count the number of incidents you were involved in from this list :)
http://www.smosh.com/smosh-pit...