There are lots of opportunities to contribute (either your personal data, or code/tech.) There are open APIs to let you design opt-in activities using everything from step data off of personal devices to entire genomes.
I'm always upset when I see journalists using non-standard units. No one uses tennis courts anymore. Football fields, schoolbuses and milli-Library-Of-Congresses please! (Or, if you live in the UK, Football fields (the other kind), double-decker buses, and fempto-Houses-of-Commons.
I know the original comment was a troll, but I'll state for the record that the Fund will have no say in the administration of the scholarship, CalArts will run it just as they do all their other scholarships. In fact, the IRS was pretty adamant about that point.
Interesting... Did you know that 85% of female bronies dislike or are at best neutral to the term "pegasister"? Bro is gender neutral in this day and age.
1) Unless you think that pretty much every piece of quality animation produced in the last 30 years (Iron Giant, Dexter's Laboratory, everything from Pixar, etc.) is "soul-crushingly-commercial toy-selling animation", you might want to do a little research on CalArts and their animation program.
2) In addition to the scholarship, the Brony Thank You Fund also donated nearly $20,000 to Toys for Tots, over $10,000 to the College View School, and over $1,600 each to GLSEN and Engineers without Borders in the last 12 months. Bronies for Good (a brony fundraising group) raised over $100,000 to aid an orphanage.
The only sarcasm I can detect around here is yours...
How about people who are genuinely appreciative of an animated cartoon with all-ages appeal, quality animation, and great voice work.
Not everything needs to be some kind of snarky ironic entity. There's room in the world for sincerity, as much as the Internet tries to beat that sentiment into oblivion.
And for the record, less than 20% of bronies self-identify as furries, the vast majority are heterosexual, and the fandom has nothing to do with pedophilia.
Are we confusing Christian Science with Scientology? If not, I worked for 3 years in the newsroom of the Monitor, and Christian Scientists are among the least proselytizing, most laid back folks I ever ran into.
I'll take credit for the gripped vs griped issue (I'll blame it on the fact I posted it past midnight, 3 timezones west of my normal). But if you check Firehose, the story started out with the headline of "Most Remote".
And for the record, I'm neither a Wookie, nor related to Humpty Dumpty. I'm a Ninja Coder of the Kung Fu Panda school.
I'm not going to argue about the mysterious information you have, since you don't go into details on it, but as the author of the article, I should tell you that it's part of the "O'Reilly Insights" series, not a straightline Forbes piece, and I very much was writing it from the perspective of "here's a significant piece of medical advancement that will affect us as individuals, and is also going to make drastic changes in the pharma industry.
You say that there aren't enough drugs that genetic variance makes a difference in, and it's all a big scam to get people's data. Personally, I think that major differences in the effectiveness of the leading breast cancer drug, and huge variance in the uptake of the most commonly prescribed blood thinner, are pretty significant, and I'm damn glad I know that I overmetabolize Coumadin, because I could very well be in an ER with a stroke some day.
We're just in the very earliest stages of looking at how genetic variation affects medicine, and once we start to build a larger database of fully sequenced individuals, I'm sure we'll find more and more cases of genome-influenced variability.
And for the record, I'm an applicant to the Personal Genome Project, which is about as public a distribution of genomic information as you can get, so I am certainly putting my money where my mouth is as far as choosing the benefits of greater knowledge over the fear of discrimination.
Right, but that's the finished product. You start with a ton of fragments that you need to sequence and fit together, and there's overlap, and multiple reads (like 30?) of each sequence, so you end up with much much more data that gets refined down into the end sequence.
It wasn't the computing power that was the holdup, it was the sequencing throughput. Also, as noted in the article, they can do it in a week now partially because they have the completed human genome to use as a template to match things up against. As I analogized in the interview, it's like the difference between putting together a jigsaw puzzle with the cover image available, and doing one without.
I wondered the same thing, so I asked. From the article:
And between two cells, one cell right next to the other, they should be identical copies of each other. But sometimes mistakes are made in the process of copying the DNA. And so some differences may exist. However, we're not at present currently sequencing single cells. We'll collect a host of cells and isolate the DNA from a host of cells. So what you end up is with when you read the sequence out on these things is, essentially, an average of this DNA sequence. Well, I mean it's digital in that eventually you get down to a single piece of DNA. But once you align these things back, if you see 30 reads that all align to the same region of the genome and only one of them has an A at the position and all of the others have a T at that position, you can't say whether that A was actually some small change between one cell and its 99 closest neighbors or whether that was just an error in the sequencing. So it's hard to say cell-to-cell how much difference there is. But, of course, that difference does exist, otherwise that's mutation and that's what eventually leads to cancer and other diseases.
Oh yes, they were lawyers, albeit providing advice pro bono. One is even a bankruptcy attorney, who gave me explicit advice how I could have stayed in the game had I wanted to make the effort.
According to multiple folks I consulted, I'm still a creditor, I'm just the VERY last in line to get anything. Which, practically speaking, means I'd never get anything anyway. But it was an easy way to get copies of all the bankruptcy proceedings, since they had to send me a copy of everything.
Too late, SCO's been off the market for a while. Just before they went under, I bought 10 shares at 0.50/share, then paid the $15 to get a physical certificate so I could frame it and put it in my bathroom, along with the rest of the toilet paper.
Which is why you can find my name in various court documents in the SCO Bankruptcy, since I registered as a creditor. I'm getting bumped off, though, because they challenged and I don't have the time and energy to do all the hoops to stay on the list.
Well, I just turned 45 and I consider myself (as a senior software engineer) to be at the top of my game. I've made a point of (selectively) keeping up with the latest. I taught myself Rails this summer, and I've spent the last 3 weeks learning Salesforce.com coding for work. I don't think it's age that pushes people out of the industry, it's failure to stay current. If you get cozy with whatever you're doing right now, and don't keep your skills fresh, you're certain to age out of the industry.
James
(Who just learned he's eligible for AARP membership in 5 years. Dinner at 4PM, here I come!)
Or you can trick someone into accepting and running your animation -- all it takes is for them to click on an object you control once. If they do that, you gain the ability to make their avatar do anything you want, as if you installed a rootkit on their avatar. So 'standing still' isn't a problem. You can be tricked into cooperating.
Actually, it takes more than that. In order to run llStartAnimation on someone, you first need to do an llGetPermissions on them, which brings up a popup window asking permission to run animations. The only exception to this is if you "sit" an object (right-click it and select Sit), in which case the script still has to run llGetPermission, but it returns immediately because sitting on something is implicit permission to be animated, that's how poseballs work.
However, even if you somehow got into a situation when (either by sitting or granting permission) you were running an animation you didn't want to, Tools->Stop All Animations will turn off anything you didn't want to do.
Slashdot Mirror
There are lots of opportunities to contribute (either your personal data, or code/tech.) There are open APIs to let you design opt-in activities using everything from step data off of personal devices to entire genomes.
https://www.openhumans.org/ [openhumans.org]
OBJ DISCLAIMER: I was just elected to the OH Board of Directors...
I'm always upset when I see journalists using non-standard units. No one uses tennis courts anymore. Football fields, schoolbuses and milli-Library-Of-Congresses please! (Or, if you live in the UK, Football fields (the other kind), double-decker buses, and fempto-Houses-of-Commons.
They can just replace The Stig with Jeff Bezos...
I know the original comment was a troll, but I'll state for the record that the Fund will have no say in the administration of the scholarship, CalArts will run it just as they do all their other scholarships. In fact, the IRS was pretty adamant about that point.
Interesting... Did you know that 85% of female bronies dislike or are at best neutral to the term "pegasister"? Bro is gender neutral in this day and age.
1) Unless you think that pretty much every piece of quality animation produced in the last 30 years (Iron Giant, Dexter's Laboratory, everything from Pixar, etc.) is "soul-crushingly-commercial toy-selling animation", you might want to do a little research on CalArts and their animation program.
2) In addition to the scholarship, the Brony Thank You Fund also donated nearly $20,000 to Toys for Tots, over $10,000 to the College View School, and over $1,600 each to GLSEN and Engineers without Borders in the last 12 months. Bronies for Good (a brony fundraising group) raised over $100,000 to aid an orphanage.
The only sarcasm I can detect around here is yours...
How about people who are genuinely appreciative of an animated cartoon with all-ages appeal, quality animation, and great voice work.
Not everything needs to be some kind of snarky ironic entity. There's room in the world for sincerity, as much as the Internet tries to beat that sentiment into oblivion.
And for the record, less than 20% of bronies self-identify as furries, the vast majority are heterosexual, and the fandom has nothing to do with pedophilia.
I think he had an appointment pending, assuming he has a good pair of hiking boots handy.
Are we confusing Christian Science with Scientology? If not, I worked for 3 years in the newsroom of the Monitor, and Christian Scientists are among the least proselytizing, most laid back folks I ever ran into.
Sorry, meant to say it assumes a 100V signal (100V x 2mA = 200mW, or 1/500 of 100W)
I'll take credit for the gripped vs griped issue (I'll blame it on the fact I posted it past midnight, 3 timezones west of my normal). But if you check Firehose, the story started out with the headline of "Most Remote". And for the record, I'm neither a Wookie, nor related to Humpty Dumpty. I'm a Ninja Coder of the Kung Fu Panda school.
I'm not going to argue about the mysterious information you have, since you don't go into details on it, but as the author of the article, I should tell you that it's part of the "O'Reilly Insights" series, not a straightline Forbes piece, and I very much was writing it from the perspective of "here's a significant piece of medical advancement that will affect us as individuals, and is also going to make drastic changes in the pharma industry.
You say that there aren't enough drugs that genetic variance makes a difference in, and it's all a big scam to get people's data. Personally, I think that major differences in the effectiveness of the leading breast cancer drug, and huge variance in the uptake of the most commonly prescribed blood thinner, are pretty significant, and I'm damn glad I know that I overmetabolize Coumadin, because I could very well be in an ER with a stroke some day.
We're just in the very earliest stages of looking at how genetic variation affects medicine, and once we start to build a larger database of fully sequenced individuals, I'm sure we'll find more and more cases of genome-influenced variability.
And for the record, I'm an applicant to the Personal Genome Project, which is about as public a distribution of genomic information as you can get, so I am certainly putting my money where my mouth is as far as choosing the benefits of greater knowledge over the fear of discrimination.
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monitor.html Is 7 Pulitzer Prizes, including one for uncovering the death camps in Bosnia, serious enough?
Sarge: Because 'M12 LRV' is too hard to say in conversation, son.
Grif: No, but, why 'Warthog'? I mean, it doesn't really look like a pig...
Sarge: Say that again?
Grif: I think it looks more like a Puma.
Sarge: What in Sam Hell is a 'Puma'?
Simmons: Uhh, you mean like the shoe company?
Grif: No! Like a Puma! It's a big cat, it's like a lion.
Sarge: You're making that up.
Grif: I'm telling you, it's a real animal.
Right, but that's the finished product. You start with a ton of fragments that you need to sequence and fit together, and there's overlap, and multiple reads (like 30?) of each sequence, so you end up with much much more data that gets refined down into the end sequence.
It wasn't the computing power that was the holdup, it was the sequencing throughput. Also, as noted in the article, they can do it in a week now partially because they have the completed human genome to use as a template to match things up against. As I analogized in the interview, it's like the difference between putting together a jigsaw puzzle with the cover image available, and doing one without.
I wondered the same thing, so I asked. From the article: And between two cells, one cell right next to the other, they should be identical copies of each other. But sometimes mistakes are made in the process of copying the DNA. And so some differences may exist. However, we're not at present currently sequencing single cells. We'll collect a host of cells and isolate the DNA from a host of cells. So what you end up is with when you read the sequence out on these things is, essentially, an average of this DNA sequence. Well, I mean it's digital in that eventually you get down to a single piece of DNA. But once you align these things back, if you see 30 reads that all align to the same region of the genome and only one of them has an A at the position and all of the others have a T at that position, you can't say whether that A was actually some small change between one cell and its 99 closest neighbors or whether that was just an error in the sequencing. So it's hard to say cell-to-cell how much difference there is. But, of course, that difference does exist, otherwise that's mutation and that's what eventually leads to cancer and other diseases.
Oh yes, they were lawyers, albeit providing advice pro bono. One is even a bankruptcy attorney, who gave me explicit advice how I could have stayed in the game had I wanted to make the effort.
According to multiple folks I consulted, I'm still a creditor, I'm just the VERY last in line to get anything. Which, practically speaking, means I'd never get anything anyway. But it was an easy way to get copies of all the bankruptcy proceedings, since they had to send me a copy of everything.
Too late, SCO's been off the market for a while. Just before they went under, I bought 10 shares at 0.50/share, then paid the $15 to get a physical certificate so I could frame it and put it in my bathroom, along with the rest of the toilet paper. Which is why you can find my name in various court documents in the SCO Bankruptcy, since I registered as a creditor. I'm getting bumped off, though, because they challenged and I don't have the time and energy to do all the hoops to stay on the list.
Well, I just turned 45 and I consider myself (as a senior software engineer) to be at the top of my game. I've made a point of (selectively) keeping up with the latest. I taught myself Rails this summer, and I've spent the last 3 weeks learning Salesforce.com coding for work. I don't think it's age that pushes people out of the industry, it's failure to stay current. If you get cozy with whatever you're doing right now, and don't keep your skills fresh, you're certain to age out of the industry.
James
(Who just learned he's eligible for AARP membership in 5 years. Dinner at 4PM, here I come!)
Or you can trick someone into accepting and running your animation -- all it takes is for them to click on an object you control once. If they do that, you gain the ability to make their avatar do anything you want, as if you installed a rootkit on their avatar. So 'standing still' isn't a problem. You can be tricked into cooperating.
Actually, it takes more than that. In order to run llStartAnimation on someone, you first need to do an llGetPermissions on them, which brings up a popup window asking permission to run animations. The only exception to this is if you "sit" an object (right-click it and select Sit), in which case the script still has to run llGetPermission, but it returns immediately because sitting on something is implicit permission to be animated, that's how poseballs work.
However, even if you somehow got into a situation when (either by sitting or granting permission) you were running an animation you didn't want to, Tools->Stop All Animations will turn off anything you didn't want to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NDI0lojaeI
Oh, those clever mice, letting their genes be manipulated, mysteriously developing arthritis, glowing in the dark.
James Turner
Senior Editor
LinuxWorld Magazine