No, I'm not a fan of your sig. Try again:
bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."
Shawn, that's you. You're a bigot.
I'm describing you as a bigot because your ideas are so egregious and they actively hurt others when you voice them. Not all debate is constructive - and your viewpoint only adds to the unfounded prejudice in the world.
If I was attacking you (and not your ideas), I would call you an idiot / douce-bag / cum dumpster. I didn't do anything remotely similar. Bigot.
I look for articles on linux, I get articles about linux alternatives (mostly M$ content).
Huh? What are your search terms? I've heard such claims several times but have never been able to replicate the result. I went to MSN and searched for "linux" "switch to linux" and "linux distributions" and only found relevant links.
Are you sure you didn't just make that up? It'd be a real obvious PR slip-up for MS to do such a thing. (Notice use of dollarsign is deprecated.)
How long before genetic modifications get into the food chain? That's easy, Never.
Eating genetically modified anything won't hurt you because of genes your eating. DNA is quite digestable and it would never find its way from the stomach into your own cells.
However there are caveats. Plants can be engineered to withstand increased amounts of pesticides. Obviously eating more pesticide is bad.
And what about Slashdot's reputation for arrogant and haughty respondents with silly hairs up their asses? Who's to blame for that reputation?
You and I. But our comments aren't on the frontpage are they? Most users only read the stories and not the replies to the replies of the comments of the stories. These postings are inconsequential.
...contributors' opinions are easy to see in their writing
opinions??? They are assinine conspiracy theories and pot shots. And they don't contain suitable references at all. It IS a failing of the site.
(Also, a correction on the insults you hurled: remove the prefix "self" - I actually am important. Oh, the other descriptors are fine.)
You screwed up. You are part of the problem with/.not the solution.
Dropping such a false and out-of-place jab in the story contributes to Slashdot's notoriety for biased reporting. We could blame the editors for approving your rediculous write-up but you deserve admonishment too.
If you had just refrained and simply described the project in an objective way the comments section would no doubt be full of thanks and kudos for the relevant, interesting story.
Disclaimer: I presently draw a paycheck from Echosphere, parent company of Echostar, parent company of Dish Network
Are you sure you work there? I couldn't find any reference to a currently existing company called Echosphere. Nevermind the fact that Echostar Communications Corporation isn't a subsidiary company at all. The references to Echosphere on the web seem to indicate it is the same company as Echostar not the parent. -DD
Re:Virus are on Border of living and Dead Matter .
on
Smallpox From The Past
·
· Score: 2, Informative
But, IANAChemist, nor a biologist, so take my words with a grain of salt
Well, I am a Biologist and your answer is right!
The basic unit of life is the cell. Anything subcellular is not considered "alive" by scientific standards.
"They offered?" Well then it was the University calling the shots then, wasn't it? Not the department IT guy threatening as the great-grandparent of this post said. I am correct.
Did it occur to you that your department is not a private entity? It's the University's building, their cabling, their computers, and their department. I can guarantee they will use their own in-house IT department because no one else is authorized to fuck with their private property.
No, its not "incredibly" incorrect. I am right. The details of what's changed in the two MSN versions are moot. The point is that only subtle (and documented) changes are what's preventing SOME 3rd-party clients from connecting. Therefore, Microsoft did not "kickban" anyone and suggesting otherwise is journalistically irresponsible.
I know this is off-topic but I'd like to give kudos on the INCREDIBLY INFORMATIVE PARENT POST.
Score 5 doesn't cut it here - the original article should not have been posted under the "kickbanned" heading at all. Thankfully the informed reader was able to post an explanation relatively early but I'm sure many slashdot readers simply noted the story as "more MS shenanigans" without reading any comments.
It's a shame really, the bias on slashdot. On one hand the industry pays a lot of attention to this site for its cutting edge coverage. On the other hand it loses so much respect from the industry for its lack of editing or fact-finding. Sometimes, the main Slashdot stories are just flat-out wrong. In this case it's even worse because of the knee-jerk reaction of an uninformed user. Then again, the editor could have done some checking too.
Anyway, this story *definately* deserves an "Update:" if the parent post is correct. I hope the editors do the right thing.
Keep in mind that some diseases (most notably cancer) are not caused by either virus...
That's not true. A huge number of zoonotic viruses (ie. found in an animal resevoir) cause cancer. A smaller subset of cancer causing viruses have been located in humans including:
HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus) which was initially thought to be the cause of AIDS.
Kaposi's Sarcoma Virus (KSV) can cause skin cancer in severely immuno-compromised individuals.
The Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is the most widely spread sexually transmitted disease and causes cervical cancer in women.
Furthermore, just because a viral etiology hasn't been detected for a particular cancer doesn't mean its not there. Lung cancer, for example, could be caused or contributed to by a viral infection. It is extremely difficult to detect the presence of a virus especially if it isn't acutely pathogenic.
Bacterial infections would be very unlikely to cause cancer because they're extracellular parasites. It is possible though since they can be consumed by other immune cells or secrete agents which affect nearby cells. My research isn't in this area so I'm not completely sure.
Most viruses? ALL viruses. The definition of a virus is a subcellular parasite. Incidently, because it is SUBcellular that means a virus is not considered to be alive.
use stem cells on a regular basis (human embryonic kidney 293 cells (or HEK-293 for short)).
Uhhhh, check your facts....293s are most definately NOT stem cells. They are a cell line derived from embryonic kidney cells. They have been severely fucked with to make them grow in cell culture. They are immortalized (probably by introducing an oncoprotein which abrogates the limit on number of cell divisions) and are severely mutated. All these modifications may even cause them to have extra chromosomes. They are a fairly common laboratory cell line and have zero therapeutic benefit.
Stem cell lines are rare. Perhaps only a dozen exist and they are not immortalized. They were cultivated from human embryos and are pluripotent. That is, they are not already differentiated into kidney cells. In fact, they have the ability to differentiate into any other tissue type like neuronal, dental, or muscle. This could translate into disease treatments which benefit mankind significantly.
The Bush Administration has made it difficult to work with stem cells since they banned the culturing of new lines. Therefore, the few existing lines have to be doled out by a handful of laboratories. This is very difficult for just a few labs and requires a lot of paperwork. Furthermore, since the lines aren't immortal the supply is tightly regulated.
Both RLFP and PCR are used in criminal prosecution. The most famous case that I know of is O.J. Simpson. Just for fun I did a quick google for "RLFP criminal database" and found a number of interesting results.
There isn't much variability on how restriction enzymes work and gels run. If there was we wouldn't employ it extensively in the laboratory setting. Its a tried and true method, an EcoRI digestion of my genome run on a 1% agarose gel will always look the same way at the same voltage in a particular buffer. Likewise with yours, they can be compared even if not run side by side.
Fingerprints databases have their use but so do genetic databases. Automation of sample processing is becoming faster everyday. I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone the potential for abuse is greater in the latter, but I digress.
I think you have a misunderstanding of DNA databases.
In the case of the military/criminal records the tissue is processed immediately because DNA is not reliably stable in tissue even at extremely low temperature for extensive periods of time (i.e. decades).
You CAN have different labs process different materials at different times because they use the same molecular biological techniques:
Restriction Fragment Lengthy Polymorphism (RFLP) is a type of analysis which "digests" DNA according to unique 5-7 basepair recongniation sequences. The location of these sequences are different in everbody so each person has a unique digestion profile which can be resolved and cataloged.
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which copies short, specific sequences of one's DNA over and over again. By PCR amplifying a number of unique loci along the genome and even sequencing for slight changes (SNPs, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) it becomes possible to uniquely identify someone.
All of the results of these techniques can be entered into a computer and referenced (i.e. a database.) Furthermore, these are just some of the types of molecular biological analysis available for "DNA databases" which contain information, not so much biological tissue.
-DD
ps) I notice a lot of Bio misinformation on Slashdot. I am in the 4th year of a PhD in Molecular Biology so please have a good understanding of Biology (preferably masters level) before attempting to correct my statements.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm not a fan of your sig. Try again: bigot: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Shawn, that's you. You're a bigot. I'm describing you as a bigot because your ideas are so egregious and they actively hurt others when you voice them. Not all debate is constructive - and your viewpoint only adds to the unfounded prejudice in the world. If I was attacking you (and not your ideas), I would call you an idiot / douce-bag / cum dumpster. I didn't do anything remotely similar. Bigot.
"I don't see any homophobia" Ohhh of course you don't - no bigot sees their own views as bigotted.
User (and possible Apple Insider) "As Seen On TV" commented on this months ago.
You're fucking paranoid.
Don't ask us why its cool if you can't figure it out.
Yeah MS is a middle man. They don't develop anything, I doubt they have any original source code. /sarcasm
Google is not putting out an OS.
Google is company that specializes in search technology. They do not write browsers or operating systems.
I look for articles on linux, I get articles about linux alternatives (mostly M$ content).
Huh? What are your search terms? I've heard such claims several times but have never been able to replicate the result. I went to MSN and searched for "linux" "switch to linux" and "linux distributions" and only found relevant links.
Are you sure you didn't just make that up? It'd be a real obvious PR slip-up for MS to do such a thing. (Notice use of dollarsign is deprecated.)
-DD
How long before genetic modifications get into the food chain? That's easy, Never.
Eating genetically modified anything won't hurt you because of genes your eating. DNA is quite digestable and it would never find its way from the stomach into your own cells.
However there are caveats. Plants can be engineered to withstand increased amounts of pesticides. Obviously eating more pesticide is bad.
-DD
And what about Slashdot's reputation for arrogant and haughty respondents with silly hairs up their asses? Who's to blame for that reputation?
...contributors' opinions are easy to see in their writing
You and I. But our comments aren't on the frontpage are they? Most users only read the stories and not the replies to the replies of the comments of the stories. These postings are inconsequential.
opinions??? They are assinine conspiracy theories and pot shots. And they don't contain suitable references at all. It IS a failing of the site.
(Also, a correction on the insults you hurled: remove the prefix "self" - I actually am important. Oh, the other descriptors are fine.)
You did. Enough to take time out of your day to even reply. That requires thought and consideration!
So think of how many others are reading my comment and considering it. In fact its only been 15 minutes and I've already been moderated +1.
Its been SO worth it.
You screwed up. You are part of the problem with /.not the solution.
Dropping such a false and out-of-place jab in the story contributes to Slashdot's notoriety for biased reporting. We could blame the editors for approving your rediculous write-up but you deserve admonishment too.
If you had just refrained and simply described the project in an objective way the comments section would no doubt be full of thanks and kudos for the relevant, interesting story.
Way to go! pffffft.
Disclaimer: I presently draw a paycheck from Echosphere, parent company of Echostar, parent company of Dish Network
Are you sure you work there? I couldn't find any reference to a currently existing company called Echosphere. Nevermind the fact that Echostar Communications Corporation isn't a subsidiary company at all. The references to Echosphere on the web seem to indicate it is the same company as Echostar not the parent.
-DD
But, IANAChemist, nor a biologist, so take my words with a grain of salt
Well, I am a Biologist and your answer is right!
The basic unit of life is the cell. Anything subcellular is not considered "alive" by scientific standards.
-DD
"They offered?" Well then it was the University calling the shots then, wasn't it? Not the department IT guy threatening as the great-grandparent of this post said. I am correct.
Ha! Go for it and see how far you get.
Did it occur to you that your department is not a private entity? It's the University's building, their cabling, their computers, and their department. I can guarantee they will use their own in-house IT department because no one else is authorized to fuck with their private property.
No, its not "incredibly" incorrect. I am right. The details of what's changed in the two MSN versions are moot. The point is that only subtle (and documented) changes are what's preventing SOME 3rd-party clients from connecting. Therefore, Microsoft did not "kickban" anyone and suggesting otherwise is journalistically irresponsible.
-DD
I know this is off-topic but I'd like to give kudos on the INCREDIBLY INFORMATIVE PARENT POST.
Score 5 doesn't cut it here - the original article should not have been posted under the "kickbanned" heading at all. Thankfully the informed reader was able to post an explanation relatively early but I'm sure many slashdot readers simply noted the story as "more MS shenanigans" without reading any comments.
It's a shame really, the bias on slashdot. On one hand the industry pays a lot of attention to this site for its cutting edge coverage. On the other hand it loses so much respect from the industry for its lack of editing or fact-finding. Sometimes, the main Slashdot stories are just flat-out wrong. In this case it's even worse because of the knee-jerk reaction of an uninformed user. Then again, the editor could have done some checking too.
Anyway, this story *definately* deserves an "Update:" if the parent post is correct. I hope the editors do the right thing.
-DD
The issue here is one of enforcement. What's to stop the dishonest from forging e-mail headers and the rest
duh. Because if its forged how are they going to sell anything? To run a business you need to have contact information to collect your cash.
-DD
That's not true. A huge number of zoonotic viruses (ie. found in an animal resevoir) cause cancer. A smaller subset of cancer causing viruses have been located in humans including:
HTLV (Human T-cell Leukemia Virus) which was initially thought to be the cause of AIDS.
Kaposi's Sarcoma Virus (KSV) can cause skin cancer in severely immuno-compromised individuals.
The Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) is the most widely spread sexually transmitted disease and causes cervical cancer in women.
Furthermore, just because a viral etiology hasn't been detected for a particular cancer doesn't mean its not there. Lung cancer, for example, could be caused or contributed to by a viral infection. It is extremely difficult to detect the presence of a virus especially if it isn't acutely pathogenic.
Bacterial infections would be very unlikely to cause cancer because they're extracellular parasites. It is possible though since they can be consumed by other immune cells or secrete agents which affect nearby cells. My research isn't in this area so I'm not completely sure.
-DD
and most viruses need other organisms as hosts.
Most viruses? ALL viruses. The definition of a virus is a subcellular parasite. Incidently, because it is SUBcellular that means a virus is not considered to be alive.
-DD
use stem cells on a regular basis (human embryonic kidney 293 cells (or HEK-293 for short)).
Uhhhh, check your facts....293s are most definately NOT stem cells. They are a cell line derived from embryonic kidney cells. They have been severely fucked with to make them grow in cell culture. They are immortalized (probably by introducing an oncoprotein which abrogates the limit on number of cell divisions) and are severely mutated. All these modifications may even cause them to have extra chromosomes. They are a fairly common laboratory cell line and have zero therapeutic benefit.
Stem cell lines are rare. Perhaps only a dozen exist and they are not immortalized. They were cultivated from human embryos and are pluripotent. That is, they are not already differentiated into kidney cells. In fact, they have the ability to differentiate into any other tissue type like neuronal, dental, or muscle. This could translate into disease treatments which benefit mankind significantly.
The Bush Administration has made it difficult to work with stem cells since they banned the culturing of new lines. Therefore, the few existing lines have to be doled out by a handful of laboratories. This is very difficult for just a few labs and requires a lot of paperwork. Furthermore, since the lines aren't immortal the supply is tightly regulated.
-DD
Both RLFP and PCR are used in criminal prosecution. The most famous case that I know of is O.J. Simpson. Just for fun I did a quick google for "RLFP criminal database" and found a number of interesting results.
There isn't much variability on how restriction enzymes work and gels run. If there was we wouldn't employ it extensively in the laboratory setting. Its a tried and true method, an EcoRI digestion of my genome run on a 1% agarose gel will always look the same way at the same voltage in a particular buffer. Likewise with yours, they can be compared even if not run side by side.
Fingerprints databases have their use but so do genetic databases. Automation of sample processing is becoming faster everyday. I'm sure I don't have to tell anyone the potential for abuse is greater in the latter, but I digress.
-DD
I think you have a misunderstanding of DNA databases.
In the case of the military/criminal records the tissue is processed immediately because DNA is not reliably stable in tissue even at extremely low temperature for extensive periods of time (i.e. decades).
You CAN have different labs process different materials at different times because they use the same molecular biological techniques:
Restriction Fragment Lengthy Polymorphism (RFLP) is a type of analysis which "digests" DNA according to unique 5-7 basepair recongniation sequences. The location of these sequences are different in everbody so each person has a unique digestion profile which can be resolved and cataloged.
The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is a technique which copies short, specific sequences of one's DNA over and over again. By PCR amplifying a number of unique loci along the genome and even sequencing for slight changes (SNPs, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms) it becomes possible to uniquely identify someone.
All of the results of these techniques can be entered into a computer and referenced (i.e. a database.) Furthermore, these are just some of the types of molecular biological analysis available for "DNA databases" which contain information, not so much biological tissue.
-DD
ps) I notice a lot of Bio misinformation on Slashdot. I am in the 4th year of a PhD in Molecular Biology so please have a good understanding of Biology (preferably masters level) before attempting to correct my statements.