They are using human cells because they want to be able to grow a human kidney, lung, heart, pancreas, etc. and transplant them into people that need them.
The current wait for a kidney is almost 10 years in certain states. Average life expectancy on dialysis is 5 years. You do the math.
The procedure works as follows. Take the human cells and break the genes that make neurons. Take the pig embryonic cells and break the genes that makes kidneys. Add a single human cell to the pig embryos. You get a pig that's brain is 100% pig, whose kidneys are 100% human, and the rest of the body is 95% pig, 5% human. Take the kidney and transplant to a human in need.
Pros: 1) Quicker 2) Don't have to type 3) Coolness factor (good for looking cool the FIRST time anyone else sees yo do it, after that... dork)
Cons: 1) You have an open mike, letting the company spy on everything you say. On a device that also tracks your web browsing and physical location. And you pay THEM for this??? 2) Everyone else can also hear what you say. So it's not just the company, it's everyone else spying on you also. 3) And they don't want to spy on you, instead you are simply the annoying shmuck making way too much noise. 3) It actually takes more time, to do than to type (assuming you are a fast typist)
It is true that the article is written poorly, but Oracle is in fact discriminating against everybody. This is true of many companies.
The way it works is simple: The managers are racist. They pay X group more - usually white men.
But the company does not WANT to pay a lot of money. So the Hiring managers are told to actively find people that are not white men. Then they offer these hiring less money.
To work like this it requires a wide spread racism among hiring companies combined with a slightly desperate population.
Honestly, if they stop there, it's not that bad. They sift off the cream of desperate people, helping them out. Theoretically the company would end up dominated by the disadvantaged group.
But it doesn't stop. What happens next is the real problem, internal discrimination.:
When it comes time to promote people, they only promote the X group (white men). After all. those were the people getting paid the most and who, because of internal discrimination, were given both the best opportunities and the most credit.
So you end up with a racist company paying X group more, while proudly proclaiming how many minorities they hire - even while they underpay them.
They drive the same route day after day, they don't need to go fast, they are either owned by the city or by companies that have major relationships with the city so they can avoid major regulatory hurdles.
These are the obvious first adopters of driverless technology.
2020 should see a quick reduction in the number of bus and similar drivers.
By the time I retire, I hope to be able to afford one of those high end driverless cars.
I was all set to rag on them for only having 'thousands', when the article stated Hundreds of thousands. Big difference. Most people I know have thousands of dollars in the bank - rent cost more than 1 thousand, after all. But not many people have hundreds of thousands.
Hundreds of thousands means they actually are letting every day Cubans use the internet, rather than just government officials.
Psst. I have here a generic "EppiPen". Just inject it into your muscle whenever you have an allergic reaction. Ignore the words "Heroin", can't you see it's been crossed out?
In this case, both the drug and the delivery system are extremely risky. The drug can cause a heart attack and the delivery system has to work through clothing when used by totally panicked, almost untrained people.
This is strong evidence that capitalism does work, eventually.
The problem is it takes a lot of time, particularly when government regulations slow things down - especially when those regulations are important safety precautions that should not be removed.
It just tells time. I wear it as a thing of beauty. It is expensive, but it attracts attention. People I am with have literally grabbed my hand and said "What is that?"
1) Lobsters do age. Their life expectancy is between 30 and 50 years in the wild. While it is true that they do not get wrinkles (shell), even during the 50 years they live, they slowly weaken. Often they lose the ability to molt.
2) Lobsters get cancer.
So the lobster says "He's right, aging is how creatures deal with cancer."
There are three reasons why reduced cancer death rate is important.
1) Cancer is an expensive, long, painful death. Let me have a heart attack, please.
2) Cancer is the reason we age. The entire aging process is an attempt by the body to stop cells from reproducing without limit (i.e. cancer). We can't stop aging until after we cure cancer.
3) Cancer gets all the big money and press. Once we defeat it, we can put our resources into other illnesses.
You are making a really bad assumption - that they can't cut the FM spectrum in half, use the digital version to maintain the existing number of stations. That frees up VALUABLE spectrum to give to other technology.
We desperately need radio spectrum for other services. Ever have trouble using bluetooth? Not enough spectrum. Cell phone can't connect? not enough spectrum.
False. The government has evidence. Some they have released (the code was written in Russian, using Russian idioms that non-native speakers are not likely to use), and some they have not released for national security reasons.
The released evidence may not be convincing, but at the very minimum, they do have some evidence. The deniers have no evidence and more importantly, HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GET ANY EVIDENCE.
1) Politicians are not as stupid as you think. They can find green products that actually make money. Yes some fail - so does some of any market segment. In general the green initiatives are just as profitable as any other business. If they were all scams, smart people would invade the market and out-compete the idiots,
2) While it is true that millions go to green companies, billions go to non-green companies. This is obvious to anyone that looks at the economy (Five of the ten largest companies in the world are oil companies, plus an electrical grid and 2 car companies). When you make that much money it is EASY to get government subsidies. But they call them tax breaks, rather than subsidies
3) In this case it is not a case of both sides being bad. Instead it is a clear case of an older established industry doing everything it can to stop a new technology that they are afraid is going to kill them. The new tech struggles to compete and has to beg the government that has been funneling billions to the old business to give them a few millions so they can survive.
Then the old money says "hey, no fair giving them millions", all without mentioning their own billions.
And you say, "duh, that's not right", in total ignorance of what is really going on.
As of today, 2017, solar is the single most profitable energy source in certain low cloud, high sunlight areas. Granted, most humans don't live in these super hot, dry, parts of the world. But that wasn't true 20 years ago. Come 2030, someone (China and Germany are leading the way), will almost certainly have Solar cheaper than fossil fuels in areas where you have to pipe or ship the natural gas.
But that requires an investment. China and Germany are making it, the question is:
1) Will the US do it also, or will we cede this market to foreigners?
2) If we do it, do we fund it with A) direct grants (requiring government to make science decisions) B) or instead via business rules that create a market based profit motive for private investors to do the funding.
I vote for (2B), because I am an American capitalist. if you are a communist, vote (2A). Or Chinese/Russian, vote (1).
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you personally hacked the DNC? Or are you a member of a federal agency that investigated the alleged hacking and are illegally discussing your work without approval?
Oh, wait a second, I see know that you are simply a shmuck that doesn't have any evidence or reason to disbelieve the police, and simply state that something the government said must be false without any evidence, merely because you don't like that it contradicts your own desires.
The hacking obviously happened, and did not materially affect the election. It was stupid and childish, much like Russia's other MANY MANY propaganda attempts. The only question is who did it. Russia had the capacity, the motive, and a long history of providing pro-Trump propaganda (go read the RT, the new version of Pravda). The US government claims it has the evidence to indicate they did it. You have no evidence against this.
You simply hate the fact that an enemy of this country agrees with you about who should be President.
Tough shit, get used to the fact that you voted for someone that the despotic tyrant named Putin likes.
1) Pornography. Make it good enough quality to jerk off. The Porn industry is dying from home made crap, but good 3d Porn could revive it, especially if making it requires more expensive equiptment than a broker college girl can afford. Expense would be a positive, not a negative.
That said, you also need:
2) No glasses. Can't limit the number of people that can view nor can you give them something that can be lost/break. Especially if your 'hands are busy.
3) Minimum of 180. No requiring people to watch from directly in front. Best if you can put it int he center of a table and watch from all 360 degree.
No one 'profits' from it, at least not direct monetary profit. Yes, some body make make money off of medical inventions developed using research done using these organs, but that is about it.
Organ donation is very difficult, very expensive, and heavily regulated in all western countries. Hence the medical tourism to non-western countries.
This will definitely save a lot of lives. In the US the wait for kidney donation (keep in mind that you can donate one of your two kidneys with minimal health issues) is often longer than the life expectancy of people that need a kidney.
There are lots of things wrong with our organ policy, but the way to fix it is NOT to continue (or increase) dangerously stupid activities in the hopes of getting donors.
Instead we can fix the "no compensantion laws" that are ridiculously tight, and do simple things like:
1) Have tax credits that cover things like a) travel and housing costs for donors, b) unemployment payments if you have to take more than 2 weeks off to donate,
2) Require all government ID's (except passports) to have a field for organ donation yes/no, on the front of the ID. You want to drink, drive, etc. you have to at least think about being a donor.
3) Fix the opt - in system - either 1) Legally enforce opt in for donations so if you sign permission for organ donation, your heirs can not over-ride it) and/or 2) allow states to use an opt-out system, so people have to consciously say no thanks to avoid being listed as an organ donor, rather than go out of their way to sign up.
You do realize that Germany has no speed limits except 'safe and reasonable'. In fact, driving slower than the existing traffic is what causes many of the crashes on the Autobahn. They have places where it is illegal to stop
Germany pretty solidly proves the opposing argument - that obeying a posted speed limit set not by road conditions, but instead set for political reasons is EXACTLY the cause of car accidents.
You can look at a theoretical world or the real world. In the real world. shmucks driving slower than the prevailing traffic cause accidents - whether they are all driving the speed limit or all driving 10 miles less than the speed limit for a practical joke/ due to a traffic jam/ or any other reasons.
Driving on public roads is a swarm activity. The driving laws are a partial but incomplete set of rules used to help that swarm activity. overlaid on top of natural psychological swarm rules. While following the rules of man is a good idea, following the rules of nature is practically essential.
The UN is a political organization, not a science one. Yes they discuss the science, but the focus is on politics. Mainly because science is not done in discussions, but politics is. The fact that you don't know that demonstrates your own stupidity, not their fraud.
Also, even in scientific events, they are not doing science, they are publicly discussing the science they already did. Think the most boring series of TED talks you ever heard, with a ton of data and big words that you don't understand unless you have the RIGHT PhD.
And yes, the scientist hang out on the beach and/or get drunk when they are not listening, because they are almost as bored by it as you are. It's work, not fun, so after work they go have some fun.
Slashdot Mirror
They are using human cells because they want to be able to grow a human kidney, lung, heart, pancreas, etc. and transplant them into people that need them.
The current wait for a kidney is almost 10 years in certain states. Average life expectancy on dialysis is 5 years. You do the math.
The procedure works as follows. Take the human cells and break the genes that make neurons. Take the pig embryonic cells and break the genes that makes kidneys. Add a single human cell to the pig embryos. You get a pig that's brain is 100% pig, whose kidneys are 100% human, and the rest of the body is 95% pig, 5% human. Take the kidney and transplant to a human in need.
Like me for example.
Pros:
1) Quicker
2) Don't have to type
3) Coolness factor (good for looking cool the FIRST time anyone else sees yo do it, after that... dork)
Cons:
1) You have an open mike, letting the company spy on everything you say. On a device that also tracks your web browsing and physical location. And you pay THEM for this???
2) Everyone else can also hear what you say. So it's not just the company, it's everyone else spying on you also.
3) And they don't want to spy on you, instead you are simply the annoying shmuck making way too much noise.
3) It actually takes more time, to do than to type (assuming you are a fast typist)
You need to read white paper I saw recently, titled:
"The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl (2015)"
It is true that the article is written poorly, but Oracle is in fact discriminating against everybody. This is true of many companies.
The way it works is simple:
The managers are racist. They pay X group more - usually white men.
But the company does not WANT to pay a lot of money. So the Hiring managers are told to actively find people that are not white men. Then they offer these hiring less money.
To work like this it requires a wide spread racism among hiring companies combined with a slightly desperate population.
Honestly, if they stop there, it's not that bad. They sift off the cream of desperate people, helping them out. Theoretically the company would end up dominated by the disadvantaged group.
But it doesn't stop. What happens next is the real problem, internal discrimination.:
When it comes time to promote people, they only promote the X group (white men). After all. those were the people getting paid the most and who, because of internal discrimination, were given both the best opportunities and the most credit.
So you end up with a racist company paying X group more, while proudly proclaiming how many minorities they hire - even while they underpay them.
When you play baccarat, you are playing against other customers, never the Casino's money.
Did the casino return the money to the other PLAYERS he cheated?
Or did they simply keep the ill-gotten gains?
Also, he deserved to keep the money he won in other games. That was bull. Money is fungible, he made those bets and won.
They drive the same route day after day, they don't need to go fast, they are either owned by the city or by companies that have major relationships with the city so they can avoid major regulatory hurdles.
These are the obvious first adopters of driverless technology.
2020 should see a quick reduction in the number of bus and similar drivers.
By the time I retire, I hope to be able to afford one of those high end driverless cars.
I was all set to rag on them for only having 'thousands', when the article stated Hundreds of thousands. Big difference. Most people I know have thousands of dollars in the bank - rent cost more than 1 thousand, after all. But not many people have hundreds of thousands.
Hundreds of thousands means they actually are letting every day Cubans use the internet, rather than just government officials.
Psst. I have here a generic "EppiPen". Just inject it into your muscle whenever you have an allergic reaction. Ignore the words "Heroin", can't you see it's been crossed out?
In this case, both the drug and the delivery system are extremely risky. The drug can cause a heart attack and the delivery system has to work through clothing when used by totally panicked, almost untrained people.
This is strong evidence that capitalism does work, eventually.
The problem is it takes a lot of time, particularly when government regulations slow things down - especially when those regulations are important safety precautions that should not be removed.
They can put it in toothpaste. Let you rub it in every day, like fluoride.
I use:
http://www.ringclock.net/
It just tells time. I wear it as a thing of beauty. It is expensive, but it attracts attention. People I am with have literally grabbed my hand and said "What is that?"
1) Lobsters do age. Their life expectancy is between 30 and 50 years in the wild. While it is true that they do not get wrinkles (shell), even during the 50 years they live, they slowly weaken. Often they lose the ability to molt.
2) Lobsters get cancer.
So the lobster says "He's right, aging is how creatures deal with cancer."
There are three reasons why reduced cancer death rate is important.
1) Cancer is an expensive, long, painful death. Let me have a heart attack, please.
2) Cancer is the reason we age. The entire aging process is an attempt by the body to stop cells from reproducing without limit (i.e. cancer). We can't stop aging until after we cure cancer.
3) Cancer gets all the big money and press. Once we defeat it, we can put our resources into other illnesses.
Tell me again how lenses can both see things as small as bacteria and also see things as far away as other planets.
Oh, wait, those are two similar but different instances of a class of technology, optimized for strikingly different purposes.
Also, fire can both cook meat AND light your home, but not the same fire. And Nitroglycerin can both protect your heart and blow up things.
You are making a really bad assumption - that they can't cut the FM spectrum in half, use the digital version to maintain the existing number of stations. That frees up VALUABLE spectrum to give to other technology.
We desperately need radio spectrum for other services. Ever have trouble using bluetooth? Not enough spectrum. Cell phone can't connect? not enough spectrum.
False. The government has evidence. Some they have released (the code was written in Russian, using Russian idioms that non-native speakers are not likely to use), and some they have not released for national security reasons.
The released evidence may not be convincing, but at the very minimum, they do have some evidence. The deniers have no evidence and more importantly, HAVE MADE NO ATTEMPT TO GET ANY EVIDENCE.
You demonstrate incredible ignorance.
1) Politicians are not as stupid as you think. They can find green products that actually make money. Yes some fail - so does some of any market segment. In general the green initiatives are just as profitable as any other business. If they were all scams, smart people would invade the market and out-compete the idiots,
2) While it is true that millions go to green companies, billions go to non-green companies. This is obvious to anyone that looks at the economy (Five of the ten largest companies in the world are oil companies, plus an electrical grid and 2 car companies). When you make that much money it is EASY to get government subsidies. But they call them tax breaks, rather than subsidies
3) In this case it is not a case of both sides being bad. Instead it is a clear case of an older established industry doing everything it can to stop a new technology that they are afraid is going to kill them. The new tech struggles to compete and has to beg the government that has been funneling billions to the old business to give them a few millions so they can survive.
Then the old money says "hey, no fair giving them millions", all without mentioning their own billions.
And you say, "duh, that's not right", in total ignorance of what is really going on.
As of today, 2017, solar is the single most profitable energy source in certain low cloud, high sunlight areas. Granted, most humans don't live in these super hot, dry, parts of the world. But that wasn't true 20 years ago. Come 2030, someone (China and Germany are leading the way), will almost certainly have Solar cheaper than fossil fuels in areas where you have to pipe or ship the natural gas.
But that requires an investment. China and Germany are making it, the question is:
1) Will the US do it also, or will we cede this market to foreigners?
2) If we do it, do we fund it with
A) direct grants (requiring government to make science decisions)
B) or instead via business rules that create a market based profit motive for private investors to do the funding.
I vote for (2B), because I am an American capitalist. if you are a communist, vote (2A). Or Chinese/Russian, vote (1).
I'm sorry, did you just admit that you personally hacked the DNC?
Or are you a member of a federal agency that investigated the alleged hacking and are illegally discussing your work without approval?
Oh, wait a second, I see know that you are simply a shmuck that doesn't have any evidence or reason to disbelieve the police, and simply state that something the government said must be false without any evidence, merely because you don't like that it contradicts your own desires.
The hacking obviously happened, and did not materially affect the election. It was stupid and childish, much like Russia's other MANY MANY propaganda attempts. The only question is who did it. Russia had the capacity, the motive, and a long history of providing pro-Trump propaganda (go read the RT, the new version of Pravda). The US government claims it has the evidence to indicate they did it. You have no evidence against this.
You simply hate the fact that an enemy of this country agrees with you about who should be President.
Tough shit, get used to the fact that you voted for someone that the despotic tyrant named Putin likes.
Those requirements are not for the same use.
That said, I don't know about you, but when me and my girlfriend watch porn. we don't work hard to stay in the direct front of the TV.
I am sure this was done to intentionally create an expectation for Trump to do the same.
Smart move.
1) Pornography. Make it good enough quality to jerk off. The Porn industry is dying from home made crap, but good 3d Porn could revive it, especially if making it requires more expensive equiptment than a broker college girl can afford. Expense would be a positive, not a negative.
That said, you also need:
2) No glasses. Can't limit the number of people that can view nor can you give them something that can be lost/break. Especially if your 'hands are busy.
3) Minimum of 180. No requiring people to watch from directly in front. Best if you can put it int he center of a table and watch from all 360 degree.
4) Make it work well in bright light.
No one 'profits' from it, at least not direct monetary profit. Yes, some body make make money off of medical inventions developed using research done using these organs, but that is about it.
Organ donation is very difficult, very expensive, and heavily regulated in all western countries. Hence the medical tourism to non-western countries.
This will definitely save a lot of lives. In the US the wait for kidney donation (keep in mind that you can donate one of your two kidneys with minimal health issues) is often longer than the life expectancy of people that need a kidney.
There are lots of things wrong with our organ policy, but the way to fix it is NOT to continue (or increase) dangerously stupid activities in the hopes of getting donors.
Instead we can fix the "no compensantion laws" that are ridiculously tight, and do simple things like:
1) Have tax credits that cover things like a) travel and housing costs for donors, b) unemployment payments if you have to take more than 2 weeks off to donate,
2) Require all government ID's (except passports) to have a field for organ donation yes/no, on the front of the ID. You want to drink, drive, etc. you have to at least think about being a donor.
3) Fix the opt - in system - either 1) Legally enforce opt in for donations so if you sign permission for organ donation, your heirs can not over-ride it) and/or 2) allow states to use an opt-out system, so people have to consciously say no thanks to avoid being listed as an organ donor, rather than go out of their way to sign up.
You do realize that Germany has no speed limits except 'safe and reasonable'. In fact, driving slower than the existing traffic is what causes many of the crashes on the Autobahn. They have places where it is illegal to stop
Germany pretty solidly proves the opposing argument - that obeying a posted speed limit set not by road conditions, but instead set for political reasons is EXACTLY the cause of car accidents.
You can look at a theoretical world or the real world. In the real world. shmucks driving slower than the prevailing traffic cause accidents - whether they are all driving the speed limit or all driving 10 miles less than the speed limit for a practical joke/ due to a traffic jam/ or any other reasons.
Driving on public roads is a swarm activity. The driving laws are a partial but incomplete set of rules used to help that swarm activity. overlaid on top of natural psychological swarm rules. While following the rules of man is a good idea, following the rules of nature is practically essential.
The UN is a political organization, not a science one. Yes they discuss the science, but the focus is on politics. Mainly because science is not done in discussions, but politics is. The fact that you don't know that demonstrates your own stupidity, not their fraud.
Also, even in scientific events, they are not doing science, they are publicly discussing the science they already did. Think the most boring series of TED talks you ever heard, with a ton of data and big words that you don't understand unless you have the RIGHT PhD.
And yes, the scientist hang out on the beach and/or get drunk when they are not listening, because they are almost as bored by it as you are. It's work, not fun, so after work they go have some fun.