This blurb could not possibly have been written by a regular human interested in technology, unless there is a SanDisk fanclub I was previously unaware of.
Yes, that's the European approach, which makes much more sense to me.
The North American approach, I guess in an attempt to avoid spending taxpayer money on things, instead requires landowners to pay for miscellaneous things that the state really ought to take care of. As one example, in many N.A. jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house up to certain standards. Whereas in most of Europe, sidewalk maintenance is considered the state's responsibility.
Police are legally allowed to possess contraband in the course of an investigation; private-sector entities aren't, absent some exception in the law permitting them to. For example, you can't keep a large collection of drugs for research purposes (e.g. training drug-detecting sensors) unless you apply for special permits.
Would the five separate cables be maintained in some sort of coordinated way, or would they each dig up the street whenever they felt like it?
If maintained in a coordinated way, what's the advantage of literally running five cables in the same trench, instead of running one cable but having it owned by a neutral entity, like a municipality or regulated utility, which sells access on equal terms?
If it were rare and sent once, it could be useful, but the system as currently implemented constantly spams you with updates, the way traditional cut-in warnings on TV do. Once I know that there's a major snowstorm in my area, I don't need impossible-to-turn-off push notifications every hour just telling me that there is still a major snowstorm and here is a routine update.
Tracking whom you called and when, goes the story, doesn't impinge on expectations of privacy.
This is true under current 4th amendment interpretations, but severely curtailed by statutes that are still in force.
Much of the law on the subject was developed in the 1960s and 70s over the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, which would record a list of all incoming and outgoing calls (the numbers and times, but not the call contents). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that pen registers were not "searches" under the 4th amendment, because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone-call metadata (as opposed to recording the call itself via a wiretap, which was held in 1967 to require a warrant).
However, Congress added statutory restrictions on the use of pen registers and similar devices in 1986; the current statute can be found here.
For better or worse, this proposed rule isn't really targeting the use of animals in research generally, only chimpanzees specifically. While some former uses of chimpanzees are being replaced by non-animal models (e.g. computational simulations), the most common replacements are other animals. In particular, genetically modified mice, which can now be modified to better mimic various kinds of human in vivo conditions, are used for a lot of things that other animals would've once been used for.
Partly because there's been a decreasing number of cases where the scientific consensus is that the use of chimpanzees as animal models is needed, relative to alternatives. Since you need to convince an Institutional Review Board (for any study, not only involving chimps) that your study is necessary, beneficial, and the best choice relative to alternatives when considering both scientific merit and ethics, there are a decreasing number of cases where IRBs approve chimpanzee studies. Cost is also a factor besides IRB issues: if you can do something without chimps, it's usually cheaper to take that option.
Here's a blurb from the National Research Council's 2011 study on the subject, in which they set up a "Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research" to assess the current situation and make recommendations:
While the chimpanzee has been a valuable animal model in past research, most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is unnecessary, based on the criteria established by the committee, except potentially for two current research uses:
1. Development of future monoclonal antibody therapies will not require the chimpanzee, due to currently available technologies. However, there may be a limited number of monoclonal antibodies already in the development pipeline that may require the continued use of chimpanzees.
2. The committee was evenly split and unable to reach consensus on the necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of a prophylactic hepatitis C virus (HCV) vaccine. Specifically, the committee could not reach agreement on whether a preclinical challenge study using the chimpanzee model was necessary and if or how much the chimpanzee model would accelerate or improve prophylactic HCV vaccine development.
That's from the biomedical-research recommendations; their conclusions on behavior research were that chimpanzee models may still be quite valuable in that area. In addition, they recommended that genomics research using chimpanzee genomes was both valuable and of relatively little ethical concern, so should continue.
The fact that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is involved makes me suspect there might be something more to this story than just activist opposition to research involving primates. That association tends to not be very political, and instead is focused more on best practices for zoos, and how to combat things like poaching for the pet or traditional-medicine industries.
In principle it's not the right place for it, but it does make transitioning much easier. If you were going to put it in the fixture, you'd need to put out a whole range of devices with the new fixture, ranging from recessed ceiling lighting to lamps to whatever else people have in their houses. And once you did that, people would have to replace their existing fixtures with the new ones.
While if you put it in the bulb, you can just screw it in to any of your existing fixtures quite easily.
If someone surgically changed their eye color, the eye color listed on their driver's license actually would change. It's based on your actual eye color, not on your eye-color genotype or your eye color at birth.
A more common case is that people's hair color sometimes changes during their lifetime, e.g. from blonde when young to brown when older. If that happens, the record is updated. It's not really that hard.
If we were just talking about genes, it wouldn't appear in most database records or on ID cards, since those don't normally include catalogs of chromosomes.
No, I just have taste in women that requires more than a 5-second view on the street to evaluate. I hope, for your sake, that you're actually 13 years old if the same isn't true for you.
Even if it's purely a romantic affair, seeing someone pass by on the street is not really a lot of information to go on w.r.t. whether you'll have compatible interests, even if we restrict solely to sexual compatibility. Maybe if your turn-ons are solely breast size or something, that's all you need to judge, but that's not the case for all of us.
Why would I want to hit on every busty 20-year-old? Attraction among advanced creatures like humans is based on considerably more than mere first-physical-sight. There are women I'm attracted to and those I'm not, and this is not usually based on randomly pointing to people I pass on the street...
I'm not sure about you, but I'm a man with advanced features like "a brain" and "thought processes", rather than an automaton that runs purely on "hardwired" stimulus-response reactions.
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.
Slashdot Mirror
This blurb could not possibly have been written by a regular human interested in technology, unless there is a SanDisk fanclub I was previously unaware of.
I'm not the person you're replying to, but that's the case in most of Texas. Here are three random cities: Bryan, TX, Richardson, TX, and Dallas, TX.
Example, From Dallas,
Yes, that's the European approach, which makes much more sense to me.
The North American approach, I guess in an attempt to avoid spending taxpayer money on things, instead requires landowners to pay for miscellaneous things that the state really ought to take care of. As one example, in many N.A. jurisdictions the property owner is responsible for maintaining a sidewalk in front of their house up to certain standards. Whereas in most of Europe, sidewalk maintenance is considered the state's responsibility.
Police are legally allowed to possess contraband in the course of an investigation; private-sector entities aren't, absent some exception in the law permitting them to. For example, you can't keep a large collection of drugs for research purposes (e.g. training drug-detecting sensors) unless you apply for special permits.
A wat is a kind of temple.
This is an interesting job title:
Special advisor on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood
Will she also be proposing that UK homes have AdBlock on by default by 2014, to ensure that kids don't get too many ads targeted at them?
Would the five separate cables be maintained in some sort of coordinated way, or would they each dig up the street whenever they felt like it?
If maintained in a coordinated way, what's the advantage of literally running five cables in the same trench, instead of running one cable but having it owned by a neutral entity, like a municipality or regulated utility, which sells access on equal terms?
If it were rare and sent once, it could be useful, but the system as currently implemented constantly spams you with updates, the way traditional cut-in warnings on TV do. Once I know that there's a major snowstorm in my area, I don't need impossible-to-turn-off push notifications every hour just telling me that there is still a major snowstorm and here is a routine update.
This is true under current 4th amendment interpretations, but severely curtailed by statutes that are still in force.
Much of the law on the subject was developed in the 1960s and 70s over the use of pen registers and trap-and-trace devices, which would record a list of all incoming and outgoing calls (the numbers and times, but not the call contents). The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that pen registers were not "searches" under the 4th amendment, because there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in phone-call metadata (as opposed to recording the call itself via a wiretap, which was held in 1967 to require a warrant).
However, Congress added statutory restrictions on the use of pen registers and similar devices in 1986; the current statute can be found here.
For better or worse, this proposed rule isn't really targeting the use of animals in research generally, only chimpanzees specifically. While some former uses of chimpanzees are being replaced by non-animal models (e.g. computational simulations), the most common replacements are other animals. In particular, genetically modified mice, which can now be modified to better mimic various kinds of human in vivo conditions, are used for a lot of things that other animals would've once been used for.
Empirically, most tech-startup founders seem to disagree with you...
Partly because there's been a decreasing number of cases where the scientific consensus is that the use of chimpanzees as animal models is needed, relative to alternatives. Since you need to convince an Institutional Review Board (for any study, not only involving chimps) that your study is necessary, beneficial, and the best choice relative to alternatives when considering both scientific merit and ethics, there are a decreasing number of cases where IRBs approve chimpanzee studies. Cost is also a factor besides IRB issues: if you can do something without chimps, it's usually cheaper to take that option.
Here's a blurb from the National Research Council's 2011 study on the subject, in which they set up a "Committee on the Use of Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research" to assess the current situation and make recommendations:
That's from the biomedical-research recommendations; their conclusions on behavior research were that chimpanzee models may still be quite valuable in that area. In addition, they recommended that genomics research using chimpanzee genomes was both valuable and of relatively little ethical concern, so should continue.
The fact that the Association of Zoos and Aquariums is involved makes me suspect there might be something more to this story than just activist opposition to research involving primates. That association tends to not be very political, and instead is focused more on best practices for zoos, and how to combat things like poaching for the pet or traditional-medicine industries.
If you're scared of owls, or your owl won't let you mount a camera on its head, you can use a chicken instead.
In principle it's not the right place for it, but it does make transitioning much easier. If you were going to put it in the fixture, you'd need to put out a whole range of devices with the new fixture, ranging from recessed ceiling lighting to lamps to whatever else people have in their houses. And once you did that, people would have to replace their existing fixtures with the new ones.
While if you put it in the bulb, you can just screw it in to any of your existing fixtures quite easily.
Lights being controlled by computer! The power of home automation at your fingertips! Click here to order today!
If someone surgically changed their eye color, the eye color listed on their driver's license actually would change. It's based on your actual eye color, not on your eye-color genotype or your eye color at birth.
A more common case is that people's hair color sometimes changes during their lifetime, e.g. from blonde when young to brown when older. If that happens, the record is updated. It's not really that hard.
Hey guys I know what I could add to this already shitty thread, a political jab directed at Obama!
If we were just talking about genes, it wouldn't appear in most database records or on ID cards, since those don't normally include catalogs of chromosomes.
No, I just have taste in women that requires more than a 5-second view on the street to evaluate. I hope, for your sake, that you're actually 13 years old if the same isn't true for you.
Even if it's purely a romantic affair, seeing someone pass by on the street is not really a lot of information to go on w.r.t. whether you'll have compatible interests, even if we restrict solely to sexual compatibility. Maybe if your turn-ons are solely breast size or something, that's all you need to judge, but that's not the case for all of us.
When Western Union discontinued its telegraph service in 2006, it sold off the network to iTelegram, which inexplicably still seems to be in business.
Why would I want to hit on every busty 20-year-old? Attraction among advanced creatures like humans is based on considerably more than mere first-physical-sight. There are women I'm attracted to and those I'm not, and this is not usually based on randomly pointing to people I pass on the street...
I'm not sure about you, but I'm a man with advanced features like "a brain" and "thought processes", rather than an automaton that runs purely on "hardwired" stimulus-response reactions.
If the industry's most prominent trade show looks like it was organized by teenage boys, it's not going to do much to dispel the stereotype that games are just something for teenage boys.