There have been sects of Christianity that didn't promote having children, and in fact promoted chastity. Unsurprisingly, they last only about a generation...
I remember stopping at a mall on my way home from a funeral out of town, which is one of the few occasions I wear my suit. I was confused at how polite all the staff were being to me and being addressed as 'sir' constantly until I remembered I was wearing a suit at some random outlet mall in the middle of nowhere. It almost made me want to get some more suits and wear them all the time, but dressing better than management at work would feel rather awkward...
Self reporting is still interesting, it just tells you a different thing than if it was decided by a metric, such as actual gross income. It would've been better if they could get that data as well and compare self-reported data versus actual economic data.
Yeah, the fellow up above railing against the biased research sure injected his own bias into interpreting the data. As you say, a wealthier person may just find everyone else less threatening, etc. I suppose that is a problem with anthropology, it is easier to find interesting correlations than to decide what they mean.
It was well before modern information technology. It is much easier to share large datasets today. Back then it would've involved sifting through paper. Now we can run everything through a statistical model to look for correlations that would not be mentally accessible to a human otherwise. We can do analysis in minutes that some poor bastard would've had to graph out back then. Hell, I'm only in my mid 30s and the stuff we can do now versus even when I was in college is a huge difference in scale and complexity.
I may be mistaken, but I think in general a zoonotic infection is more deadly when it first jumps, and then attenuates a bit as it adapts to the new host. For example, if I recall correctly, chimps can be infected with HIV but it doesn't destroy their immune system and give them AIDS. The problem with HIV in humans is that it takes so long to kill the host that there is less selective pressure for the virus to attenuate than, say, with ebola.
I was glad to see when they announced the SE it indicated that whenever my 5S dies people will still make pocketable phones. With the 90s PC-style upgrade boom slowing with phones it will be interesting to see how the market stratifies further.
I suppose the over 55 crowd might be a good demo for them: expendable income once the kids are moved out, not savvy enough to have switched to streaming like the traditional core demo of young people. I'm with you there on SyFy... lots of crap on there when we had cable, but it was at least an attempt at good original fiction. When we cut the cable I bought The Expanse to stream on Amazon and was pleasantly surprised at the production and will be looking forward to the second season.
We've cancelled cable but last night decided to channel surf the airwaves instead of streaming something and the only thing remotely watchable was Lucifer on Fox. Everything else was dancing or singing competitions. The traditional stations don't appear to be even trying to make anything good.
I work in biomedical research where we independently verify safety and efficacy under strict government regulation. I may have had similar replies elsewhere. There isn't any difference in how we design studies to evaluate drugs versus vaccines at our facility, anyhow. The manufacturers generally don't have the sort of facilities and expertise they'd need to do their own testing. Then once they think they are done the FDA makes some offhand comments that end up requiring us to do a great deal more work for them. The liability shielding is needed because vaccines are not very profitable: the companies have already started moving away from making new ones unless the government has grants out. It is easier to make money on Rogaine or Viagra if you're a drug company. Treating someone once a decade with a single injection? Can't make epipen level profits on that!
Taser armed drones are actually less worrying to me than the fellow they killed with the robot bomb. In the latter case, killing a suspect is justified when the police are under deadly threat. Arguably, if the sniper is contained and they can take their time jerry rigging a drone bomb, they could also take their time to come up with something that doesn't circumvent due process. I don't know enough details about that situation to say they weren't justified, but it is easy to see how the implications are a little troubling. However, if they had been able to taser that fellow with drones then he'd have been able to stand trial.
That's not the same thing... if I buy a (fictional) El Cheapo brand cable, nominally El Cheapo has some of their neck in the deal and will hopefully make a decent product, competing with the name brand and other generics. If, however, they make it look like it was made by Apple then they have no reputation at stake, as well as diluting Apple's reputation.
Functional clone products aren't really a problem, the brand can succeed or fail on its own merits. But when it is counterfeit then the manufacturer has no reason to make it anything more than visually identical.
Double blind isn't the only way to run a study... but to put things in perspective, if you use an old fashioned killed virus vaccine you're going to inject someone with thousands of antigens, only some of which are immunogenic. For a modern vaccine schedule with purified antigen, you'll be injecting someone with far fewer while vaccinating them against a broader range of pathogens. It is more or less automatically less likely to have any surprise effects, due to how your immune system works. You do need to worry about adjuvants, but you don't need to do a mock full schedule to test the safety of those.
I haven't done any work on MMR but I can assure you that there are exacting standards and practices for vaccine safety and efficacy, and companies pay dearly for the services they receive in validating their products before they can bring them to market.
Out of curiosity, when freeware is licensed to be free for personal use but paid for business use, is this generally enforceable? If so, then that'll be the precedent. I've seen language like that in EULAs but as we know that doesn't always mean much.
What's with that, anyway? I remember back in the day when there'd be creationists trolling the biology threads but the only cranks left seem to be the climategate guys. There aren't even any anti-vaxxers around anymore.
We got ours because with the promotion it was cheaper than the 'dumb' TVs and came with a free Playstation. (This was a PS3 back when they were newer). We used the built-in Netflix for a while but it actually works better to use a box or game console rather than the app, so the smart features are only occasionally used for some internet radio. I wouldn't pay extra for the smart features, but if comparing two otherwise identical models I might consider it a boon.
Complex traits like intelligence and leadership are influenced by genes but you'd learn more about the candidate by mapping their neural net to see what 'nurture' did to them, which will be more important than the 'nature' stuff. The 'robots will take all our jobs' stuff would probably happen before we could pull that off well enough to use it as an employment criterion.
Well you can't just get energy out of nowhere... so yes it would consume it. The problem with renewable energy is how to store the extra energy offpeak so that you can use it onpeak. Storing the energy chemically would be very nice compared to some of the other weird ways like pumping water uphill and so on.
I'd guess it would do poorly with particularly dirty water given the scale involved... even if the catalyst wasn't poisoned, a biofilm would clog those activity sites in an open body of water. It would be exciting if it was durable, though! Maybe if you took waste water and fermented it you could run this on the effluent to further refine it...
That's true, but I don't see how it could've gone otherwise once the other big players realized there was money to be made. You used to be able to stream CBS for free, but not they've got subscription. I'm not sure why I would pay to stream what I can get with the antenna for free... no time shifting, I guess, but what little I watch on CBS isn't very serialized. When we had HBO Now to watch GoT I was interested in seeing what movies they had, but it was rather poorly populated. Better worth the money to get a Netflix disc plan, Redbox, or the library. I do wonder how competitors will handle binging. Netflix has cultured this behavior and have enough shows scattered around the calendar year to promote year-round subscription. We ended our HBO Now sub once GoT was done, and plan on binging Westworld in between GoT episodes. It'll be hard to convince everyone to stay subscribed year round to multiple streaming services versus rotating.
Slashdot Mirror
There have been sects of Christianity that didn't promote having children, and in fact promoted chastity. Unsurprisingly, they last only about a generation...
I remember stopping at a mall on my way home from a funeral out of town, which is one of the few occasions I wear my suit. I was confused at how polite all the staff were being to me and being addressed as 'sir' constantly until I remembered I was wearing a suit at some random outlet mall in the middle of nowhere. It almost made me want to get some more suits and wear them all the time, but dressing better than management at work would feel rather awkward...
Self reporting is still interesting, it just tells you a different thing than if it was decided by a metric, such as actual gross income. It would've been better if they could get that data as well and compare self-reported data versus actual economic data.
Yeah, the fellow up above railing against the biased research sure injected his own bias into interpreting the data. As you say, a wealthier person may just find everyone else less threatening, etc. I suppose that is a problem with anthropology, it is easier to find interesting correlations than to decide what they mean.
It was well before modern information technology. It is much easier to share large datasets today. Back then it would've involved sifting through paper. Now we can run everything through a statistical model to look for correlations that would not be mentally accessible to a human otherwise. We can do analysis in minutes that some poor bastard would've had to graph out back then. Hell, I'm only in my mid 30s and the stuff we can do now versus even when I was in college is a huge difference in scale and complexity.
I may be mistaken, but I think in general a zoonotic infection is more deadly when it first jumps, and then attenuates a bit as it adapts to the new host. For example, if I recall correctly, chimps can be infected with HIV but it doesn't destroy their immune system and give them AIDS. The problem with HIV in humans is that it takes so long to kill the host that there is less selective pressure for the virus to attenuate than, say, with ebola.
I was glad to see when they announced the SE it indicated that whenever my 5S dies people will still make pocketable phones. With the 90s PC-style upgrade boom slowing with phones it will be interesting to see how the market stratifies further.
I suppose the over 55 crowd might be a good demo for them: expendable income once the kids are moved out, not savvy enough to have switched to streaming like the traditional core demo of young people. I'm with you there on SyFy... lots of crap on there when we had cable, but it was at least an attempt at good original fiction. When we cut the cable I bought The Expanse to stream on Amazon and was pleasantly surprised at the production and will be looking forward to the second season.
We've cancelled cable but last night decided to channel surf the airwaves instead of streaming something and the only thing remotely watchable was Lucifer on Fox. Everything else was dancing or singing competitions. The traditional stations don't appear to be even trying to make anything good.
I work in biomedical research where we independently verify safety and efficacy under strict government regulation. I may have had similar replies elsewhere. There isn't any difference in how we design studies to evaluate drugs versus vaccines at our facility, anyhow. The manufacturers generally don't have the sort of facilities and expertise they'd need to do their own testing. Then once they think they are done the FDA makes some offhand comments that end up requiring us to do a great deal more work for them. The liability shielding is needed because vaccines are not very profitable: the companies have already started moving away from making new ones unless the government has grants out. It is easier to make money on Rogaine or Viagra if you're a drug company. Treating someone once a decade with a single injection? Can't make epipen level profits on that!
Taser armed drones are actually less worrying to me than the fellow they killed with the robot bomb. In the latter case, killing a suspect is justified when the police are under deadly threat. Arguably, if the sniper is contained and they can take their time jerry rigging a drone bomb, they could also take their time to come up with something that doesn't circumvent due process. I don't know enough details about that situation to say they weren't justified, but it is easy to see how the implications are a little troubling. However, if they had been able to taser that fellow with drones then he'd have been able to stand trial.
That's not the same thing... if I buy a (fictional) El Cheapo brand cable, nominally El Cheapo has some of their neck in the deal and will hopefully make a decent product, competing with the name brand and other generics. If, however, they make it look like it was made by Apple then they have no reputation at stake, as well as diluting Apple's reputation.
Functional clone products aren't really a problem, the brand can succeed or fail on its own merits. But when it is counterfeit then the manufacturer has no reason to make it anything more than visually identical.
You would suggest that a double blind study on, say, an Ebola vaccine would be ethical?
Double blind isn't the only way to run a study... but to put things in perspective, if you use an old fashioned killed virus vaccine you're going to inject someone with thousands of antigens, only some of which are immunogenic. For a modern vaccine schedule with purified antigen, you'll be injecting someone with far fewer while vaccinating them against a broader range of pathogens. It is more or less automatically less likely to have any surprise effects, due to how your immune system works. You do need to worry about adjuvants, but you don't need to do a mock full schedule to test the safety of those.
So are antivax opinions ;)
I haven't done any work on MMR but I can assure you that there are exacting standards and practices for vaccine safety and efficacy, and companies pay dearly for the services they receive in validating their products before they can bring them to market.
Out of curiosity, when freeware is licensed to be free for personal use but paid for business use, is this generally enforceable? If so, then that'll be the precedent. I've seen language like that in EULAs but as we know that doesn't always mean much.
What's with that, anyway? I remember back in the day when there'd be creationists trolling the biology threads but the only cranks left seem to be the climategate guys. There aren't even any anti-vaxxers around anymore.
We got ours because with the promotion it was cheaper than the 'dumb' TVs and came with a free Playstation. (This was a PS3 back when they were newer). We used the built-in Netflix for a while but it actually works better to use a box or game console rather than the app, so the smart features are only occasionally used for some internet radio. I wouldn't pay extra for the smart features, but if comparing two otherwise identical models I might consider it a boon.
Complex traits like intelligence and leadership are influenced by genes but you'd learn more about the candidate by mapping their neural net to see what 'nurture' did to them, which will be more important than the 'nature' stuff. The 'robots will take all our jobs' stuff would probably happen before we could pull that off well enough to use it as an employment criterion.
Well you can't just get energy out of nowhere... so yes it would consume it. The problem with renewable energy is how to store the extra energy offpeak so that you can use it onpeak. Storing the energy chemically would be very nice compared to some of the other weird ways like pumping water uphill and so on.
I'd guess it would do poorly with particularly dirty water given the scale involved... even if the catalyst wasn't poisoned, a biofilm would clog those activity sites in an open body of water. It would be exciting if it was durable, though! Maybe if you took waste water and fermented it you could run this on the effluent to further refine it...
If you read avclub.com or similar you'll see that they review and write articles about the better Netflix shows, just like with TV.
That's true, but I don't see how it could've gone otherwise once the other big players realized there was money to be made. You used to be able to stream CBS for free, but not they've got subscription. I'm not sure why I would pay to stream what I can get with the antenna for free... no time shifting, I guess, but what little I watch on CBS isn't very serialized. When we had HBO Now to watch GoT I was interested in seeing what movies they had, but it was rather poorly populated. Better worth the money to get a Netflix disc plan, Redbox, or the library. I do wonder how competitors will handle binging. Netflix has cultured this behavior and have enough shows scattered around the calendar year to promote year-round subscription. We ended our HBO Now sub once GoT was done, and plan on binging Westworld in between GoT episodes. It'll be hard to convince everyone to stay subscribed year round to multiple streaming services versus rotating.