So if a potential employer is trying to keep their corporate healthcare costs down and they had the opportunity to screen DNA for potential for future illness they wouldn't take the opportunity?
Since it is the only Open Source genome, I'm sure there will be plenty of research
I suppose it is the only "open source" genome, unfortunately the label seems to have no meaning whatsoever in this context, and the whole thing is just a cheap publicity stunt.
Essentially all data produced in academic labs is created as part of government-funded projects or is deposited in government funded databases when it's published - all of these are in the Public Domain, always have been, always will be.
The 1000 Genomes Project, HapMap, dbSNP, RefSeq, GenBank, etc. are all in the Public Domain - there is a vast amount of data out there, no one cares about this guy's "open source" genome.
but it's a nice relief to be assured that you can not have alzehimer, diabetes or whatever
And, of course, a genetic examination can assure you of no such thing. The most it can do is tell you if you have a specific mutation making you considerably more likely to have something undesirable.
Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.
How should I put this delicately... are you being dense on purpose, to grab at whatever perceived shred of moral high-ground you can? Or are you challenged in some way so you interpret everything only in the most literal way possible? If it's the latter, I apologize for the tone of my reply.
Cult: A structured religion in which (1) members are required to pay money to be a member or progress within the religious structure, (2) members are segregated from their family or other outside influences as part of membership, (3) members are forbidden from leaving and harassed if they do manage to leave, or any combination of the above.
1) Tithing. Voluntary in most churches that practice it nowadays, but certainly hasn't been so traditionally.
2) Monasticism. Both Christian and Buddhist (among others).
3) Apostasy is punishable by death in several Islamic countries.
There just isn't a catch-all rule that will describe any cult, but will not apply to any "legitimate" religion.
It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.
Can you provide a workable definition of both 'cult' and 'legitimate religion' that allows to differentiate between the two?
Hell, to a lot of people the Branch Davidians are a perfectly legitimate church that was unlawfully attacked, and its members murdered, by the US government. Once we accept that "legitimate religions" get a pass on pretty much anything, it become quite hard to figure out where to draw the line (legally, at least).
I don't see any machines that use the same Intel Xeon processors that the Mac Pro uses on Dell's site for sub-$1000.
That was two different points: you can configure a system very similar to a $4,624 Mac Pro (but, yes, with a "consumer" branded CPU, not a Xeon) for $2,150. Additionally, this discussion was about sub-$1,000 (or $1,5000 at most) home PCs, which Apple doesn't sell.
These machines aren't for home users, they're used to MAKE money. Don't confuse them.
Exactly. Which is why the flood of "Just get a Mac!" comments in this thread is not helpful.
You're just describing the difference between mathematics and natural sciences.
A broad definition of "science", and one most people usually use, is: "a discipline that seeks to expand our knowledge of the world, in a systematic fashion" (hey, it's right there in the name). Mathematics is one such discipline (a "formal science").
Sure, people often use "science" to mean "natural science", but it's used in the general sense, too.
Now say what you want about the quality of Heroes, but if people are saying "FK IT, I'll download it rather than watch it" the ratings suffer and the show gets canned.
This again. You realize that networks don't magically know what you're watching, right? TVs don't actually broadcast your viewing habits back to the station. TV ratings are collected by Nielsen from participating households and have nothing to do with what the majority of people are watching (although better data is available from DVR statistics, apparently it's not being used anywhere).
Of course cops often break the law, but it's still not a misdemeanor or violation of any law to refuse to show them your ID simply because they demand it without a reason.
Even better, under no circumstances are you required to show ID to cops, with or without reason for them to "demand" it. They can detain you (on "reasonable suspicion") or they can arrest you (with "probable cause"); in case of the former, in some states, you have to identify yourself (verbally) if asked, in the case of the latter you never have to do anything (though obviously, depending on the circumstances, things may go smoother with a certain level of cooperation).
Hey, I grew up in a "papers, please" kind of country, some rights still give me the warm fuzzies.
It took only two and a half months for this to get on/., it's yesterday's news tomorrow, as usual.
Is it really all that important that some bitch-fest about texting idiosyncrasies makes it to Slashdot the very instant it is published?
I know we're in the social revolution and are all living at the speed of Twitter, or whatever, but really, is that the sort of "news" that loses its awesome impact after a few weeks?
If it makes you feel any better, it seems the story was posted five days after the NYT article came out.
Slashdot Mirror
So if a potential employer is trying to keep their corporate healthcare costs down and they had the opportunity to screen DNA for potential for future illness they wouldn't take the opportunity?
They already can't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_Information_Nondiscrimination_Act
Why has no one hard of this?
Fun fact: Ron Paul was the only vote against this bill, in both the House and the Senate.
And apparently his genome is at least 25 times longer than a human's - he should probably have that looked at.
Since it is the only Open Source genome, I'm sure there will be plenty of research
I suppose it is the only "open source" genome, unfortunately the label seems to have no meaning whatsoever in this context, and the whole thing is just a cheap publicity stunt.
Essentially all data produced in academic labs is created as part of government-funded projects or is deposited in government funded databases when it's published - all of these are in the Public Domain, always have been, always will be.
The 1000 Genomes Project, HapMap, dbSNP, RefSeq, GenBank, etc. are all in the Public Domain - there is a vast amount of data out there, no one cares about this guy's "open source" genome.
but it's a nice relief to be assured that you can not have alzehimer, diabetes or whatever
And, of course, a genetic examination can assure you of no such thing. The most it can do is tell you if you have a specific mutation making you considerably more likely to have something undesirable.
Only on slashdot and other tech blogs can something so trivial as the PS3's DRM be considered as bad as what happened to Lisa McPherson, or any other number of deaths, morbidities or other horror stories to come out of the COS.
How should I put this delicately... are you being dense on purpose, to grab at whatever perceived shred of moral high-ground you can? Or are you challenged in some way so you interpret everything only in the most literal way possible? If it's the latter, I apologize for the tone of my reply.
Cult: A structured religion in which (1) members are required to pay money to be a member or progress within the religious structure, (2) members are segregated from their family or other outside influences as part of membership, (3) members are forbidden from leaving and harassed if they do manage to leave, or any combination of the above.
1) Tithing. Voluntary in most churches that practice it nowadays, but certainly hasn't been so traditionally.
2) Monasticism. Both Christian and Buddhist (among others).
3) Apostasy is punishable by death in several Islamic countries.
There just isn't a catch-all rule that will describe any cult, but will not apply to any "legitimate" religion.
One of the groups behind each of those bits of information will kill you for doing it. I'll let you guess which one.
Sony?
It's always been a mystery to me how an organization that is so clearly a cult managed to get status in the United States as a legitimate religion.
Can you provide a workable definition of both 'cult' and 'legitimate religion' that allows to differentiate between the two?
Hell, to a lot of people the Branch Davidians are a perfectly legitimate church that was unlawfully attacked, and its members murdered, by the US government. Once we accept that "legitimate religions" get a pass on pretty much anything, it become quite hard to figure out where to draw the line (legally, at least).
I don't see any machines that use the same Intel Xeon processors that the Mac Pro uses on Dell's site for sub-$1000.
That was two different points: you can configure a system very similar to a $4,624 Mac Pro (but, yes, with a "consumer" branded CPU, not a Xeon) for $2,150. Additionally, this discussion was about sub-$1,000 (or $1,5000 at most) home PCs, which Apple doesn't sell.
These machines aren't for home users, they're used to MAKE money. Don't confuse them.
Exactly. Which is why the flood of "Just get a Mac!" comments in this thread is not helpful.
Sure, a Mac costs a bit more than a Windows box. But not substantially more.
Are you kidding? A Mac Pro costs about twice as much as a Dell Studio XPS with similar hardware.
And we're talking about sub-$1,000 machines here, Apple doesn't compete in that space.
I've never been there, but I'm sure Anniston, Alabama is a dump.
There. Now, since I'm not an Anniston, Alabama employee, all sides should be happy.
it puts you in the top 20% of households in the U.S.A.
Wouldn't that put you in the top 3% or so? Only need $90k for top 20%.
Voodoo priest?
It's from fucking 1994, how time-sensitive do you really think that story is?
And yeah, "twitterverse"...
You're just describing the difference between mathematics and natural sciences.
A broad definition of "science", and one most people usually use, is: "a discipline that seeks to expand our knowledge of the world, in a systematic fashion" (hey, it's right there in the name). Mathematics is one such discipline (a "formal science").
Sure, people often use "science" to mean "natural science", but it's used in the general sense, too.
Something like 80-85% of the world is religious - how much more dominant can you get?
Now say what you want about the quality of Heroes, but if people are saying "FK IT, I'll download it rather than watch it" the ratings suffer and the show gets canned.
This again. You realize that networks don't magically know what you're watching, right? TVs don't actually broadcast your viewing habits back to the station. TV ratings are collected by Nielsen from participating households and have nothing to do with what the majority of people are watching (although better data is available from DVR statistics, apparently it's not being used anywhere).
Heroes was just shit, though.
Joe Pantoliano does have a certain tendency to be awesome, especially in Wachowski movies.
About 60 million, give or take, mostly from the Soviet Union, China, Germany, Poland, Japan, and India.
A Partician is:
A Roman nobleman? No, wait...
hollywood fears linux
How so? Doesn't linux render most of Hollywood's movies these days?
Good thing the export restrictions were lifted, I seem to remember a story from the other day about the US government "releasing software" to Iran.
Of course cops often break the law, but it's still not a misdemeanor or violation of any law to refuse to show them your ID simply because they demand it without a reason.
Even better, under no circumstances are you required to show ID to cops, with or without reason for them to "demand" it. They can detain you (on "reasonable suspicion") or they can arrest you (with "probable cause"); in case of the former, in some states, you have to identify yourself (verbally) if asked, in the case of the latter you never have to do anything (though obviously, depending on the circumstances, things may go smoother with a certain level of cooperation).
Hey, I grew up in a "papers, please" kind of country, some rights still give me the warm fuzzies.
What's next from Square? FF XIV-2, now with 97% more lag and still featuring the worst UI in modern MMO gaming?
That's a ridiculous name! Obviously the next title will be: Final Fantasy XIII-2 3D.
So, a beta version of a major new release has a lot of bugs? You don't say.
It took only two and a half months for this to get on /., it's yesterday's news tomorrow, as usual.
Is it really all that important that some bitch-fest about texting idiosyncrasies makes it to Slashdot the very instant it is published?
I know we're in the social revolution and are all living at the speed of Twitter, or whatever, but really, is that the sort of "news" that loses its awesome impact after a few weeks?
If it makes you feel any better, it seems the story was posted five days after the NYT article came out.