The GP (GGP?) stated that murder doesn't require intent. It does. The legal definition of murder in most US states requires the intent to kill. If this guy called the cops with the intent that they would kill someone, he is guilty of murder. If he called them as a joke and someone died, he's guilty of manslaughter. The "involuntary" in involuntary manslaughter refers to the lack of specific intention to cause death, not to a lack of voluntary action. That's right in the article I linked.
It's quite possible that a stupid kid could file a false police report with the intention of harassing, rather than killing, someone. I agree it's a very serious crime and should come with jail time. I'm not American, so I probably don't have quite the same judicial blood lust that you do.
Scientists don't accuse each other of manipulating data every day. Misinterpreting data, yes, manipulating, no. Fraudulent data manipulation is a serious charge and, if it turns out to be true, will most likely destroy your career.
"Scientists are in general, a group that enjoy proposing alterntive theories, different possibilities, and can appear to be contrarians at times. Your concept that they simply walk in lockstep with each other, darning not to differ only proves yr know nought."
He he. I've had a few non-scientist friends around when a discussion between scientists broke out. They're convinced we're all nasty bastards who hate each other. I've made friends cry during their practice defences and they've thanked me for it afterward.
Yup. And even if you do get the grant, you don't just get to pay yourself whatever you want. Your salary is fixed by the institution you work for and the grant money goes to equipment, students, techs and materials that you very carefully justified in your application.
This is my 18th year of post-secondary science research. This year my salary will increase for the first time in five years (it's been all cuts before this) and I will make 80% (not adjusted for inflation) of what my friend made in 1998 after dropping out of high school and going to work in industry.
It's interesting that you've listed all inventors and engineers. What the OP was pointing out is that basic science doesn't always have an immediately obvious application, but is used extensively by people like the ones you listed in order to produce things that do. Edison and Telsa wouldn't have been able to do any of the things they did if it weren't for basic research in electricity and materials done by people before them. The Wright brothers were the latest thing to come along after a hundred years of research into the principles of flight. Torvalds was taking advantage of a truly amazing amount of research into things as obscure as the quantum nature of matter, much of which took place nearly a century earlier.
A friend of mine mentioned her courtesy car at the mechanic was an audi with a button to apply the emergency brake. I didn't believe her. These things really do exist?
Using the same key for each car is a pretty obvious flaw that's bitten a few companies. Having your car compromised by a motivated expert is pretty much unavoidable. Having all your cars compromised by one motivated expert, once, and anybody with a passing familiarity with Google afterwards, is really something that shouldn't happen anymore.
Because you keep harping on the same one point. You seem to buy into the marketing theory that any publicity is good publicity. I don't, and from observation it doesn't really appear that many businesses do either, otherwise "damage control" wouldn't exist.
Dell undoubtedly wants people posting stuff about the 8 700, but they probably don't want people posting that it's a stupid name. If they thought that was a good thing they'd go for the gold and call it the Dell Up Uranus.
In most systems (including most of the US states), murder does indeed require intent. The charge for killing without prior intent is manslaughter. In most of the US states the appropriate charge in this case would probably be involuntary manslaughter, where your actions caused someone to die but you didn't have any intent, pre-existing or in the moment, to kill someone.
Transferred gut bacteria from donor to recipient mouse can have effects on weight. There are scientific studies to support that.
Transferring bacteria from the guts of one human to another seems similar, but it is not necessarily. As I said before, humans have different gut bacteria, different digestive systems and different metabolisms. Effects that are noted in mouse fecal transplants will not necessarily be present in human fecal transfers. You can certainly take some human poop and shove it into another human, but you should not assume it will have the same effects as such a procedure does in a mouse, without scientific testing.
However, if you believe effects demonstrated in mice are straightforward to transfer to humans, I'd like to sell you some great patents!
You're right. I was misremembering that figure, or it was for a combined heat and power plant. The newer turbine driven warships are more efficient than the diesel ones though.
The real drive behind rail guns isn't for efficiency or getting rid of magazines though. It's for range with weapons that are more cost effective than cruise missiles.
Current theories leave lots of whores? I find it a little hard to believe that many prostitutes are caused by cutting edge physics theory. Maybe some Johns. On the other hand, prostitution is a way for grad students to make enough money to eat, so maybe.
Physics at high energies is counterintuitive to us almost by definition, because it is not something we can normally experience. Cutting edge theory is necessarily even farther out. Most of that theory is going to turn out to be wrong, but the way you advance is to think up some ideas that aren't impossible, then go test them through experiment, which is exactly what these guys are doing.
The idea of more than the usual number of dimensions has some attractive properties that make the math of other, more conventional things, work out better. String theory, which is what this prediction is based upon, has some really attractive bits, which is why it gained so much popularity, although it seems to be bogging down now. One of the big criticisms of string theory is that it doesn't make many unique testable predictions. This experiment is something we can actually do, fairly simply, to test a particular set of string theory-based ideas.
There were lots of people who thought Einstein and his ilk were crazy for talking about space and time warps. Einstein himself thought the idea of an expanding universe was nuts, and that the dudes talking about magical teleportation were cray cray. Now we take all those things for granted: they're essential components of the phone you carry in your pocket that you can buy for $100 at Wal-mart.
Do you just post rants on Slashdot for the fun of it?
The OP was talking about this story, which is a case report. N of 1, in uncontrolled circumstances. That is not science. It does, however, agree with actual science, done in animals, and suggests that those animals studies may be applicable to humans.
You're aware that mice are not humans right? Dozens of promising drugs and other treatments that work well in petrie dishes and animals fail human clinical trials every year. In particular relevance to this story, rodent digestion, gut microbiota, diet and metabolism are quite different from humans.
Conveniently, the medical doctor who advanced those "theories" and unethically experimented on children to "prove" them, had a financial interest in just such a split up vaccine.
Statistics is probabilistic. Even when you do it right, your conclusion is more than likely going to be wrong.
"Studies" are what grew out of scientists writing letters to each other saying "hey Joe, look what I found. Interesting hey? You should try it!" They're not meant to be conclusive by themselves, but rather indications of what experiments are interesting to replicate and expand.
There's quite a bit of animal data from controlled studies. You're right, this is just an anecdote, but it does suggest that the same things might be effective in humans.
This is what I tell my colleagues, who notice that I never really get sick. If you didn't grow up in the country eating dirt, head out to a mall and find an escalator. Put your tongue on the railing and wait for it to go all the way around. If you don't die, you'll find yourself with a nice healthy immune system and excellent gut flora.
When most people say "calorie" they don't mean the amount of energy you'd get out of some food if you put it in a bomb calorimeter and completely combusted it. They mean the estimate you see on the packaging of how much energy your body might absorb from the food, which seems to vary wildly in practice.
To further complicate matters, when Americans say "calorie" they're actually talking about a unit that is equivalent to 1000 calories in the rest of the world.
It isn't science. It's something medical doctors do and some of them think is science.
You're right though, it is certainly an interesting anecdote that suggests approaches for actual science to investigate.
There is, in fact, scientific evidence in animals that gut microbiota and fecal transplants can affect weight. This is the first report I've heard that it might work in humans.
Look at it the other way. They feet cattle antibiotics to make them gain weight. Americans feed themselves antibiotics and. ?
It's possible that something in the gut biota can be put off kilter by antibiotic treatment and that's responsible to the (so far poorly understood) correlation between antibiotics and weight gain.
Actually, animal experiments suggest that yes, fecal transplants from skinny people might help fat people lose weight. The digestive system is complicated, and it's not just a matter of "efficient" bacteria. In addition, the transplanted bacteria might outcompete the native versions and take over. Also, you generally don't just shove some poop up someone's ass in a fecal transplant. Usually the native flora has been killed or seriously weakened by antibiotics first.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understood what I said.
The GP (GGP?) stated that murder doesn't require intent. It does. The legal definition of murder in most US states requires the intent to kill. If this guy called the cops with the intent that they would kill someone, he is guilty of murder. If he called them as a joke and someone died, he's guilty of manslaughter. The "involuntary" in involuntary manslaughter refers to the lack of specific intention to cause death, not to a lack of voluntary action. That's right in the article I linked.
It's quite possible that a stupid kid could file a false police report with the intention of harassing, rather than killing, someone. I agree it's a very serious crime and should come with jail time. I'm not American, so I probably don't have quite the same judicial blood lust that you do.
So do they fail on or off? If you're driving along and your battery cable falls off, does you e-brake immediately go full on, or not work at all?
Scientists don't accuse each other of manipulating data every day. Misinterpreting data, yes, manipulating, no. Fraudulent data manipulation is a serious charge and, if it turns out to be true, will most likely destroy your career.
"Scientists are in general, a group that enjoy proposing alterntive theories, different possibilities, and can appear to be contrarians at times. Your concept that they simply walk in lockstep with each other, darning not to differ only proves yr know nought."
He he. I've had a few non-scientist friends around when a discussion between scientists broke out. They're convinced we're all nasty bastards who hate each other. I've made friends cry during their practice defences and they've thanked me for it afterward.
Yup. And even if you do get the grant, you don't just get to pay yourself whatever you want. Your salary is fixed by the institution you work for and the grant money goes to equipment, students, techs and materials that you very carefully justified in your application.
This is my 18th year of post-secondary science research. This year my salary will increase for the first time in five years (it's been all cuts before this) and I will make 80% (not adjusted for inflation) of what my friend made in 1998 after dropping out of high school and going to work in industry.
It's interesting that you've listed all inventors and engineers. What the OP was pointing out is that basic science doesn't always have an immediately obvious application, but is used extensively by people like the ones you listed in order to produce things that do. Edison and Telsa wouldn't have been able to do any of the things they did if it weren't for basic research in electricity and materials done by people before them. The Wright brothers were the latest thing to come along after a hundred years of research into the principles of flight. Torvalds was taking advantage of a truly amazing amount of research into things as obscure as the quantum nature of matter, much of which took place nearly a century earlier.
A friend of mine mentioned her courtesy car at the mechanic was an audi with a button to apply the emergency brake. I didn't believe her. These things really do exist?
Using the same key for each car is a pretty obvious flaw that's bitten a few companies. Having your car compromised by a motivated expert is pretty much unavoidable. Having all your cars compromised by one motivated expert, once, and anybody with a passing familiarity with Google afterwards, is really something that shouldn't happen anymore.
Because you keep harping on the same one point. You seem to buy into the marketing theory that any publicity is good publicity. I don't, and from observation it doesn't really appear that many businesses do either, otherwise "damage control" wouldn't exist.
Dell undoubtedly wants people posting stuff about the 8 700, but they probably don't want people posting that it's a stupid name. If they thought that was a good thing they'd go for the gold and call it the Dell Up Uranus.
In most systems (including most of the US states), murder does indeed require intent. The charge for killing without prior intent is manslaughter. In most of the US states the appropriate charge in this case would probably be involuntary manslaughter, where your actions caused someone to die but you didn't have any intent, pre-existing or in the moment, to kill someone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Transferred gut bacteria from donor to recipient mouse can have effects on weight. There are scientific studies to support that.
Transferring bacteria from the guts of one human to another seems similar, but it is not necessarily. As I said before, humans have different gut bacteria, different digestive systems and different metabolisms. Effects that are noted in mouse fecal transplants will not necessarily be present in human fecal transfers. You can certainly take some human poop and shove it into another human, but you should not assume it will have the same effects as such a procedure does in a mouse, without scientific testing.
However, if you believe effects demonstrated in mice are straightforward to transfer to humans, I'd like to sell you some great patents!
Sorry, was meant to reply to the parent of your post.
You're right. I was misremembering that figure, or it was for a combined heat and power plant. The newer turbine driven warships are more efficient than the diesel ones though.
The real drive behind rail guns isn't for efficiency or getting rid of magazines though. It's for range with weapons that are more cost effective than cruise missiles.
Current theories leave lots of whores? I find it a little hard to believe that many prostitutes are caused by cutting edge physics theory. Maybe some Johns. On the other hand, prostitution is a way for grad students to make enough money to eat, so maybe.
Physics at high energies is counterintuitive to us almost by definition, because it is not something we can normally experience. Cutting edge theory is necessarily even farther out. Most of that theory is going to turn out to be wrong, but the way you advance is to think up some ideas that aren't impossible, then go test them through experiment, which is exactly what these guys are doing.
The idea of more than the usual number of dimensions has some attractive properties that make the math of other, more conventional things, work out better. String theory, which is what this prediction is based upon, has some really attractive bits, which is why it gained so much popularity, although it seems to be bogging down now. One of the big criticisms of string theory is that it doesn't make many unique testable predictions. This experiment is something we can actually do, fairly simply, to test a particular set of string theory-based ideas.
There were lots of people who thought Einstein and his ilk were crazy for talking about space and time warps. Einstein himself thought the idea of an expanding universe was nuts, and that the dudes talking about magical teleportation were cray cray. Now we take all those things for granted: they're essential components of the phone you carry in your pocket that you can buy for $100 at Wal-mart.
Do you just post rants on Slashdot for the fun of it?
The OP was talking about this story, which is a case report. N of 1, in uncontrolled circumstances. That is not science. It does, however, agree with actual science, done in animals, and suggests that those animals studies may be applicable to humans.
You're aware that mice are not humans right? Dozens of promising drugs and other treatments that work well in petrie dishes and animals fail human clinical trials every year. In particular relevance to this story, rodent digestion, gut microbiota, diet and metabolism are quite different from humans.
It's a current area of research, but electronics can be hardened to an astonishing degree.
http://www.popsci.com/technolo...
http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nsw... (warning, BIG PDF).
MDs are not scientists. They make a lot of seat-of-their-pants calls. Many of them even do so in the face of good scientific evidence.
Conveniently, the medical doctor who advanced those "theories" and unethically experimented on children to "prove" them, had a financial interest in just such a split up vaccine.
Statistics is probabilistic. Even when you do it right, your conclusion is more than likely going to be wrong.
"Studies" are what grew out of scientists writing letters to each other saying "hey Joe, look what I found. Interesting hey? You should try it!" They're not meant to be conclusive by themselves, but rather indications of what experiments are interesting to replicate and expand.
There's quite a bit of animal data from controlled studies. You're right, this is just an anecdote, but it does suggest that the same things might be effective in humans.
This is what I tell my colleagues, who notice that I never really get sick. If you didn't grow up in the country eating dirt, head out to a mall and find an escalator. Put your tongue on the railing and wait for it to go all the way around. If you don't die, you'll find yourself with a nice healthy immune system and excellent gut flora.
So far nobody has taken me up on it.
When most people say "calorie" they don't mean the amount of energy you'd get out of some food if you put it in a bomb calorimeter and completely combusted it. They mean the estimate you see on the packaging of how much energy your body might absorb from the food, which seems to vary wildly in practice.
To further complicate matters, when Americans say "calorie" they're actually talking about a unit that is equivalent to 1000 calories in the rest of the world.
It isn't science. It's something medical doctors do and some of them think is science.
You're right though, it is certainly an interesting anecdote that suggests approaches for actual science to investigate.
There is, in fact, scientific evidence in animals that gut microbiota and fecal transplants can affect weight. This is the first report I've heard that it might work in humans.
Look at it the other way. They feet cattle antibiotics to make them gain weight. Americans feed themselves antibiotics and. ?
It's possible that something in the gut biota can be put off kilter by antibiotic treatment and that's responsible to the (so far poorly understood) correlation between antibiotics and weight gain.
Actually, animal experiments suggest that yes, fecal transplants from skinny people might help fat people lose weight. The digestive system is complicated, and it's not just a matter of "efficient" bacteria. In addition, the transplanted bacteria might outcompete the native versions and take over. Also, you generally don't just shove some poop up someone's ass in a fecal transplant. Usually the native flora has been killed or seriously weakened by antibiotics first.