The scientists quoted say 10 years away from any sort of human clinical application. One interesting thing to note is that these are progeria mice, who would normally age very rapidly from their condition. So it's more like making them age more normal, not extending their lifespan abnormally. Will be interesting to see if they can use this technique to actual reverse normal aging and extend a normal lifespan, not just one which was previously going to be cut very short.
Socialism not having a causative relationship to millions dead?
Funny how a Nobel prize winning economist wrote an entire book back in the 40s illustrating and predicting why that sort of mass murdering dictator would always end up in power under that sort of system. It turns out that we have lots of examples (Germany, USSR, Spain, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc...) of how it works in practice.
The main problem is that people who get ahead under socialism are those who are more and more ruthless about wanting to run other people's lives, while the people who want to do good for people and let them run their own lives aren't the type to go after government power. If you put the power to run people's lives for them (which is ultimately what socialism is, as it's actually implemented in government) in the hands of government officials, then don't be surprised when people who want to run other's lives are attracted to controlling that power.
Sure, if you don't have full blown socialism, just some socialist programs, their power is more limited over you, but that's not an argument for continuing and expanding the government's power over people's lives... which is what the government has been doing for at least 70 years or more in the United States and many the places.
Out of 4,000 workers, a newspaper managed to find three tents out in the woods, one of which they reported as apparently abandoned and the actual person in one tent made it clear he had a home elsewhere he could sleep in, but preferred to be closer to work to save on commuting costs.
Clearly Amazon is at fault for daring to provide someone employment. Probably the other 3,998 or so people they hired are just sleeping without tents because of their super low wages, right?
In most places (notably, non-prisons and without servant's quarters...), companies don't decide for and aren't responsible for their employees where and how they are allowed to live. That's up to the employee to decide for themselves.
Yeah, you could also have titled this story "Amazon hires thousands of temporary workers desperate for jobs, giving them a chance at Christmas!"
But then, that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it? 4,000 jobs in a small town is a massive benefit to those who need work, but I guess some would rather they sat at home and just collected a check from other people's wages instead.
If you're fact-checking a claim, you're supposed to look at the facts of the claim, not base your results on whether or not the source gives you additional information about it.
Either you know what the facts really are of a claim or you don't. If you don't know what the facts actually are, then you have no business rating how true the claim is. Rating essentially the same "fact" true or false based on the source for it reveals something other than fact-checking is going on.
So for $30K, you can patch 400K bot systems to never participate in another botnet? That's less than some companies pay in DDOS protection every month..... just an idea, guys.
Fortunately, we still have Justices on the Supreme Court who will follow the Constitution on protecting freedom of the press, i.e. Citizen's United, since the candidate who was advocating for overruling that decision protecting those criticizing her lost.
In other words, I don't believe Trump has the power to "silence the press", because those on the right who would have to be involved have demonstrated they wouldn't be. You notice the press has no actual fear of the President-elect. People who are afraid don't say and act how they do, that's behavior for people who still believe they run things.
Some people have realized the more you know about the subject of a "news" story, the less accurate it appears to be to you.
Many of those people don't make the leap to understand all the other stories they don't know as much about the subject of are about the same level of accuracy, so congratulations on that.:)
difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that the lies the press tell you differ from the lies the politicians tell you, not that they tell you no lies.
So Trump winning has secured Democracy for the foreseeable future? i.e. now that most of the press is going to go back to actually digging up dirt on and criticizing the administration...
Because they couldn't get the government to regulate the Internet as they wanted to via the normal democratic process using the people's elected representatives, so they did an end-run and got the Dems on the FCC to do it instead.
Now that the people have gotten around to electing a President on an explicit platform of overturning the FCC's actions and he gets to pick the commissioners, there is speculation their end-run won't last very long.
You can apply this same logic also to many of Obama's executive actions, where they basically said Congress doesn't want this to happen, but we'll just ignore the intent of the law and subvert the letter for a different outcome. The problem with that approach is that with a new President and cabinet and agency heads can come a complete reversal.
Assuming they keep their word and repeal Obamacare (and they can use the non-filibuster budget process.. heck, even "deem" it passed in the House if they want...), then what is left of Obama's legacy? A bunch of screwed up middle-eastern countries....
Thanks for confirming my suggestion of your bubble. Most people aren't willing to admit they categorically ignore any information from anyone who doesn't agree with them.
This is a serious comment, not an argumentative one. If you really believe what's in your post, you should consider broadening your news sources and where you get your information from.
You sound like you've been stuck in a far-left echo chamber all election season.
The beauty of the Internet is that you can access all sorts of news and points of view. You don't have to wallow in people you don't agree with, but maybe get out a little bit more...
Look at it this way... did any of your normal news sources predictions correspond with reality in the election outcome? If not, that's a good sign you're empirically missing a big chunk of the available information.
Why not? Because I feel bad for all the poor people who will have to go hungry and not be able to have a nice life because of the destruction of wealth and prevention of economic improvement your "changes" will cause compared to the baseline compounding economics involved.
Even if true (and the scientific support just isn't there for it), the future will be much wealthier, more knowledgeable and better able to deal with any related fallout.
You're erring on the side of alarmism, not caution. Caution is to not upend the world's economy for decades based on alarmist speculation.
Magical devices are reserved for women. Men aren't so picky they demand to be able to automatically and inconspicuously send an alert from inside a faraday cage.
The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting accelerating loss of glaciers, steep declines in water availability, worsening land conflicts and deepening poverty.
The above is a 100% accurate statement. The below statement is also 100% accurate: "The planet could pass a key target on world temperature drops in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind." or even: "The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
In other words, neither statement says anything but that a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely exists. Which make them meaningless in terms of a scientific conclusion.
Wake me up again when scientists say, "If we don't drop our carbon consumption tomorrow, we're all going to die. Therefore, wanting to live, as of today I'm no longer going to consume any more carbon than I absolutely need to live" and have actual data to back it up. 'Cause that's about how drastic it'd have to be for people to believe after all the false alarms and cries of wolf not matched by personal action nor actual empirical results. After you're wrong repeatedly in your models, the rest of us will need to see some actually predict something accurately for a while before thinking you're on to something.
A system based on total votes counted for the entire nation is vulnerable by rigging performed by election officials in as little as a single location.
As an example, currently if a heavily Democratic Party controlled State like CA has election officials who rigg things to add votes to Hillary, they only affect the electoral college results from CA, which being heavily Democratic already they've already got. If switched to a system of total votes, they could produce extra "votes" for Hillary where GOP poll watchers didn't show up (because the local race isn't competitive) and seriously affect the overall election. If you want a reverse example, think Diabold in a southern state and the potential ability to add votes when another party controls things.
So one of the reasons for the current system is to limit and constrain issues in a particularly partisan location to that location, rather than making it a nationwide issue. Another reason (the original one for the electoral college) is that different parts of the country have different interests, values and goals, even beyond the typical urban/rural divide. Forcing candidates to win in a lot of places by what may be a smaller amount, rather then simply winning a few places by a ton of votes and ignoring the rest improves their ability to represent the whole country, rather than one single partisan slice popular regionally.
as you can only stockpile a finite quantity of fuel, you can't guarantee staying up until the power's back
You only need to store enough fuel to last until your first contracted for tanker truck shows up. Typically two weeks of on-site diesel is more than plenty, as long as you have a good enough contract specifying ongoing deliveries in case of an emergency. In that situation, you can keep things running for as long as your generator equipment doesn't fail from use...hopefully you count that in months or even years.
But really, the typical solution is that you have data centers all over the country. Unless the whole country gets destroyed (in which case you likely have bigger problems), even if you lose multiple data centers (usually for something like a fiery chemical train crash in a tunnel which destroys most major fiber provider's networks all at one and slams their surviving network - been, there, gone through that, whole east coast was off the internet for a couple of days), you're fine.
It's a lot easier to drop 1000 ballots in the mail than it is to escort 1000 different people into a polling booth as their "grandson" on election day. They have poll watchers to cover the second scenario, but not the first.
Look at it from a game theory perspective. Election fraud is more rare when an election isn't expected to be close (not worth the risk of bothering) and more common when it is. Election fraud is more rare when riskier (i.e. more likely to get caught) and more common when unlikely/impossible to get caught.
So nobody bothers much when the election isn't close and people are voting securely, but when you get a few really close swing states to turn an election and they have a situation where it's easy to defraud, then that's when you get stories about Ohio precincts with no opposition poll watchers voting >100% of their registered voters, or people complaining about their Florida mentally ill brother having someone come and take his absentee ballot.
The idea is to keep it on the difficult side to commit fraud, not to suddenly make it much easier across the country by going to 100% mail-in ballots.
I read it. Apparently you missed some key portions...Yeah, it mentions the pros and cons. The reason it talks about them is that: "While voter-impersonation fraud at the polls is nearly unheard of, both sides in the voter fraud debate acknowledge that absentee ballots are susceptible to fraud." and then there is this little section:
More susceptible to fraud Election fraud is rare, but it usually involves absentee or mail ballots, said Paul Gronke, a Reed College political scientist, who directs the Early Voting Information Center in Oregon. He cites what he calls a classic example of election fraud, a local official stealing votes by filling out absentee ballots. That was the case in Lincoln County, W.Va., where the sheriff and clerk pleaded guilty to distributing absentee ballots to unqualified voters and helping mark them during a 2010 Democratic primary.
Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, said vote-buying and bribery could occur more easily with mail voting and absentee voting. At a polling place, someone who bribed voters would have no way to verify that the bribe worked. A person who bribes mail voters could watch as they mark ballots or even mark ballots for them.
Gans also points to the potential to influence voters in gatherings that some call ballot-signing parties. A caregiver could mark a dependent's ballot.
"All the other types of fraud are essentially hard to do and easy to defend against," Gans said. "This isn't."
The point was that vote by mail is way more susceptible to fraud... something which if you took a few minutes to think it through is pretty obvious.
Voting fraud is most important... and most likely to happen, in closely contested elections. Yeah, when an election is for sure going one way or the other, why would anyone bother to risk it?
You sound like you haven't actually thought any of this through. There are already news stories of the young and the mentally ill in this election cycle having their absentee mail-in ballot voted for them in swing states expected to be close.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now their process requires changes in embryo, so you're already too old yourself... :)
The 10 years is a hope for finding a way to do the same thing without genetic manipulation before birth.
The scientists quoted say 10 years away from any sort of human clinical application. One interesting thing to note is that these are progeria mice, who would normally age very rapidly from their condition. So it's more like making them age more normal, not extending their lifespan abnormally. Will be interesting to see if they can use this technique to actual reverse normal aging and extend a normal lifespan, not just one which was previously going to be cut very short.
Socialism not having a causative relationship to millions dead?
Funny how a Nobel prize winning economist wrote an entire book back in the 40s illustrating and predicting why that sort of mass murdering dictator would always end up in power under that sort of system. It turns out that we have lots of examples (Germany, USSR, Spain, Cuba, China, Venezuela, etc...) of how it works in practice.
The main problem is that people who get ahead under socialism are those who are more and more ruthless about wanting to run other people's lives, while the people who want to do good for people and let them run their own lives aren't the type to go after government power. If you put the power to run people's lives for them (which is ultimately what socialism is, as it's actually implemented in government) in the hands of government officials, then don't be surprised when people who want to run other's lives are attracted to controlling that power.
Sure, if you don't have full blown socialism, just some socialist programs, their power is more limited over you, but that's not an argument for continuing and expanding the government's power over people's lives... which is what the government has been doing for at least 70 years or more in the United States and many the places.
Out of 4,000 workers, a newspaper managed to find three tents out in the woods, one of which they reported as apparently abandoned and the actual person in one tent made it clear he had a home elsewhere he could sleep in, but preferred to be closer to work to save on commuting costs.
Clearly Amazon is at fault for daring to provide someone employment. Probably the other 3,998 or so people they hired are just sleeping without tents because of their super low wages, right?
In most places (notably, non-prisons and without servant's quarters...), companies don't decide for and aren't responsible for their employees where and how they are allowed to live. That's up to the employee to decide for themselves.
Yeah, you could also have titled this story "Amazon hires thousands of temporary workers desperate for jobs, giving them a chance at Christmas!"
But then, that wouldn't fit the narrative, would it? 4,000 jobs in a small town is a massive benefit to those who need work, but I guess some would rather they sat at home and just collected a check from other people's wages instead.
If you're fact-checking a claim, you're supposed to look at the facts of the claim, not base your results on whether or not the source gives you additional information about it.
Either you know what the facts really are of a claim or you don't. If you don't know what the facts actually are, then you have no business rating how true the claim is. Rating essentially the same "fact" true or false based on the source for it reveals something other than fact-checking is going on.
Feel free to explain if Politifact isn't biased, why they contradict themselves on if a claim is true or not based on who said it.
So for $30K, you can patch 400K bot systems to never participate in another botnet? That's less than some companies pay in DDOS protection every month..... just an idea, guys.
Fortunately, we still have Justices on the Supreme Court who will follow the Constitution on protecting freedom of the press, i.e. Citizen's United, since the candidate who was advocating for overruling that decision protecting those criticizing her lost.
In other words, I don't believe Trump has the power to "silence the press", because those on the right who would have to be involved have demonstrated they wouldn't be. You notice the press has no actual fear of the President-elect. People who are afraid don't say and act how they do, that's behavior for people who still believe they run things.
Some people have realized the more you know about the subject of a "news" story, the less accurate it appears to be to you.
Many of those people don't make the leap to understand all the other stories they don't know as much about the subject of are about the same level of accuracy, so congratulations on that. :)
So Trump winning has secured Democracy for the foreseeable future? i.e. now that most of the press is going to go back to actually digging up dirt on and criticizing the administration...
Because they couldn't get the government to regulate the Internet as they wanted to via the normal democratic process using the people's elected representatives, so they did an end-run and got the Dems on the FCC to do it instead.
Now that the people have gotten around to electing a President on an explicit platform of overturning the FCC's actions and he gets to pick the commissioners, there is speculation their end-run won't last very long.
You can apply this same logic also to many of Obama's executive actions, where they basically said Congress doesn't want this to happen, but we'll just ignore the intent of the law and subvert the letter for a different outcome. The problem with that approach is that with a new President and cabinet and agency heads can come a complete reversal.
Assuming they keep their word and repeal Obamacare (and they can use the non-filibuster budget process.. heck, even "deem" it passed in the House if they want...), then what is left of Obama's legacy? A bunch of screwed up middle-eastern countries....
Thanks for confirming my suggestion of your bubble. Most people aren't willing to admit they categorically ignore any information from anyone who doesn't agree with them.
You can quote one of the most partisan NY Times columnists all you want, but Reagan:
A. Presided over one of the best economies in modern times.
B. Never advocated for anything called "trickle-down economics"
C. Reagan deregulation didn't cause the S&L crisis.
This is a serious comment, not an argumentative one. If you really believe what's in your post, you should consider broadening your news sources and where you get your information from.
You sound like you've been stuck in a far-left echo chamber all election season.
The beauty of the Internet is that you can access all sorts of news and points of view. You don't have to wallow in people you don't agree with, but maybe get out a little bit more...
Look at it this way... did any of your normal news sources predictions correspond with reality in the election outcome? If not, that's a good sign you're empirically missing a big chunk of the available information.
Why not? Because I feel bad for all the poor people who will have to go hungry and not be able to have a nice life because of the destruction of wealth and prevention of economic improvement your "changes" will cause compared to the baseline compounding economics involved.
Even if true (and the scientific support just isn't there for it), the future will be much wealthier, more knowledgeable and better able to deal with any related fallout.
You're erring on the side of alarmism, not caution. Caution is to not upend the world's economy for decades based on alarmist speculation.
Magical devices are reserved for women. Men aren't so picky they demand to be able to automatically and inconspicuously send an alert from inside a faraday cage.
The above is a 100% accurate statement. The below statement is also 100% accurate:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature drops in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
or even:
"The planet could pass a key target on world temperature rise in about a decade, prompting massive increases in wealth for everyone, plenty of food and peace for all mankind."
In other words, neither statement says anything but that a possibility, no matter how likely or unlikely exists. Which make them meaningless in terms of a scientific conclusion.
Wake me up again when scientists say, "If we don't drop our carbon consumption tomorrow, we're all going to die. Therefore, wanting to live, as of today I'm no longer going to consume any more carbon than I absolutely need to live" and have actual data to back it up. 'Cause that's about how drastic it'd have to be for people to believe after all the false alarms and cries of wolf not matched by personal action nor actual empirical results. After you're wrong repeatedly in your models, the rest of us will need to see some actually predict something accurately for a while before thinking you're on to something.
A system based on total votes counted for the entire nation is vulnerable by rigging performed by election officials in as little as a single location.
As an example, currently if a heavily Democratic Party controlled State like CA has election officials who rigg things to add votes to Hillary, they only affect the electoral college results from CA, which being heavily Democratic already they've already got. If switched to a system of total votes, they could produce extra "votes" for Hillary where GOP poll watchers didn't show up (because the local race isn't competitive) and seriously affect the overall election. If you want a reverse example, think Diabold in a southern state and the potential ability to add votes when another party controls things.
So one of the reasons for the current system is to limit and constrain issues in a particularly partisan location to that location, rather than making it a nationwide issue. Another reason (the original one for the electoral college) is that different parts of the country have different interests, values and goals, even beyond the typical urban/rural divide. Forcing candidates to win in a lot of places by what may be a smaller amount, rather then simply winning a few places by a ton of votes and ignoring the rest improves their ability to represent the whole country, rather than one single partisan slice popular regionally.
You only need to store enough fuel to last until your first contracted for tanker truck shows up. Typically two weeks of on-site diesel is more than plenty, as long as you have a good enough contract specifying ongoing deliveries in case of an emergency. In that situation, you can keep things running for as long as your generator equipment doesn't fail from use...hopefully you count that in months or even years.
But really, the typical solution is that you have data centers all over the country. Unless the whole country gets destroyed (in which case you likely have bigger problems), even if you lose multiple data centers (usually for something like a fiery chemical train crash in a tunnel which destroys most major fiber provider's networks all at one and slams their surviving network - been, there, gone through that, whole east coast was off the internet for a couple of days), you're fine.
It's a lot easier to drop 1000 ballots in the mail than it is to escort 1000 different people into a polling booth as their "grandson" on election day. They have poll watchers to cover the second scenario, but not the first.
Look at it from a game theory perspective. Election fraud is more rare when an election isn't expected to be close (not worth the risk of bothering) and more common when it is. Election fraud is more rare when riskier (i.e. more likely to get caught) and more common when unlikely/impossible to get caught.
So nobody bothers much when the election isn't close and people are voting securely, but when you get a few really close swing states to turn an election and they have a situation where it's easy to defraud, then that's when you get stories about Ohio precincts with no opposition poll watchers voting >100% of their registered voters, or people complaining about their Florida mentally ill brother having someone come and take his absentee ballot.
The idea is to keep it on the difficult side to commit fraud, not to suddenly make it much easier across the country by going to 100% mail-in ballots.
You've never seen someone reseal an envelope? Or open it along an edge (leaving the seal) and then close the edge back up?
Or hey... just have them show the voted ballot before sealing it and giving it to you?
It's a small security help, but not much of one.
I read it. Apparently you missed some key portions...Yeah, it mentions the pros and cons. The reason it talks about them is that:
"While voter-impersonation fraud at the polls is nearly unheard of, both sides in the voter fraud debate acknowledge that absentee ballots are susceptible to fraud."
and then there is this little section:
The point was that vote by mail is way more susceptible to fraud... something which if you took a few minutes to think it through is pretty obvious.
Voting fraud is most important... and most likely to happen, in closely contested elections. Yeah, when an election is for sure going one way or the other, why would anyone bother to risk it?
You sound like you haven't actually thought any of this through. There are already news stories of the young and the mentally ill in this election cycle having their absentee mail-in ballot voted for them in swing states expected to be close.