The gist of it is that no further evolution will occur unless humans can be separated into isolated groups.
From the article: Evolution is still at work. But instead of diverging, our gene pool has been converging for tens of thousands of years
In other words, as long as there are selective pressures there will be 'evolution'. However, as you mentioned, don't expect any new 'human species' in the next million years or so unless a group of us become truly isolated and face unique selective pressures. Subtle, but important.
Saying that RNAi makes a cell scream "Virus!", and thus destroying the RNA (or cell - you were grossly unclear) is a grossly misleading. RNAi 'knocks down' a gene by complementing the RNA target, leading to the degredation of the target RNA thus knocking down protein expression. Plants have been shown to use RNAi to resist viruses, but that hasn't been shown for mammalian systems (we use toll-like receptors (TLR-3 for dsRNA and TLR-8 for ssRNA specifically) to recognise RNA and induce an interferon response). Now, we often introduce RNAi by way of viral vectors, but that's a whole different story.
I'm not for internet hunting and I applaud California for the ban. However, I'd strongly encourage everyone to listen to NPR's story regarding the issue of internet hunting.
In short, the story is about a gentleman who used to be an avid hunter but is now paralyzed from the neck down. The story talks about the adrenaline rush the man experienced and how, for a moment, it gave him a sense of freedom and his old life back. The article also speaks about the mechanics of internet hunting - the 'hunt' isn't so much like a video game as someone is sitting there with the gun talking to the internet hunter.
Point taken. However, understand that until Slashdot incorporates a spell checker, you're going to see misspellings - it simply isn't worth anyone's time to write a response in Word first (forgive me), or to review a comment beyond a quick cursory glance.
As you haven't already, you'll soon be amazed by the inability of people in 'positions who should know better' to communicate (either by writing or orally). While many of my peers are very good writers, I know others who are very poor writers and even confuse your and you're. A principle in my wife's company can't write a coherent email for the life of him.
Those who can communicate effectively and intelligently clearly have an advantage in life. However, those who can't may still compete, and sometimes do quite well.
Despite popular belief, the problem of not being able to entice students to science is neither student interest nor government funding - it's salary.
After graduating with a bachleors in biochemistry, I worked for two years at a research institution as a technician making ~$20,000 per year. I then attended graduate school and made ~$18,000 per year. After five years I worked as a post-doc at an academic instituation and made ~$25,000 per year (The NIH recently increased the post-doc salary to $36,000 for a first year post-doc up to $46,000 for a fifth year post-doc). Now, as an assistant professor (which lasts for about 5 years at which point you're reviewed for tenure), I make ~$80,000 per year.
Contrast this with my wife and friends. Two years after graduating from college with an economics degree, my wife made over $80,000 per year. Each of my five friends with business degrees were making over $100,000 per year within four years after graduation. Of my biochemistry peers, those that chose a career outside of research (medicine excluded) did significantly better than those who either worked in science or continued on for their advanced degree. Of my peers with who I obtained a doctorate degree, those who joined industry are doing slightly better (on average ~$100,000 for those without post-docs, ~$120,000 who did) than those who stayed in academic, while those that left science are either doing much better (consulting and writing), or much worse (school teacher).
So, not only do those who presue science achieve a far, far less salary than those who do not, but they're also deeply hurt by all of the income they didn't make during their training. Why do scientists have such big egos? Because we have nothing else.
So, tell me - why should students join science? I'm a scientist, I love science, and I absolutely love my research - but I'd be lying if I said that I don't get frustrated by making far less than my friends while working much, much longer hours. It's not an issue money - it's an issue of compensation. We have advanced degree, we expand the economy, we save lives, and we work incredibly hard - please compensate us appropriately.
Every single institution I've been at bought computers in bulk from Dell, with the OS (windows) pre-installed - only those with special needs (and were pretty computer savy to begin with) used Linux. Linux simply isn't a household name in the desktop market. Besides, practically everyone uses Windows or the Macintosh - sticking with a popular OS (real or perceived, it doesn't matter) reduces the risk of incompatability with the rest of the world.
Most of the "gamers" you speak of are not true gamers, really.
What a bunch of elitist bullshit. What exactly constitues a 'true gamer'? Is a 'true gamer' someone who spends 40+ hours a week gaming, blows through games in a (long) day (missing most of the content on the way - but hey, they 'won'), and then complains that games are 'too short', 'too easy', or 'too cliche'? Sounds a lot like my first roommate in college (1994) - he flunked out.
What those of us who grew up in the Nintendo generation who have families, jobs, and (dare I say) disposable income? It took me one month to complete Fable (took my friend two), my (only) WoW character is a measly lvl 44 (been playing since launch), and I have absolutely no interest in Halo2. Games play a very important role in my life and those of my friends - it gives us a chance to unwind, socalize, and have fun. The games don't define us - we use them as a tool.
What the 'true gamers' don't understand is that they are the minority. Why should the gaming companies cater to you? They're going to end up buying the game anyway. For the rest of us, 'wonderous game play' means simplicity, playing without excel spreadsheets, and the ability to walk away after an hour or two.
Except in this case I don't see how the student is being punished or disciplined. In my experience, these boards were reserved for "I was wrongly accused" or "the punishment is too harsh", not "I disagree with the policy". The latter was reserved for the student government and newspaper.
As the material you are downloading may, as you claim, be acquired through other protocols we see no need for you to use P2P. Seeing as we are neither banning FTP nor HTTP traffic, your ability to pursue your academic interested will not be hindered by our decision. Please discontinue all P2P activity immediately.
One of my coworkers had a junior higher who absolutely detested school - he simply didn't see the point; he was going to make computer games. Anyway, one day one of the gaming website had a series of articles regarding physics engines, how gaming companies really needed people with a physics background, and the articles provided some suggested reading. I passed the articles to the mom, who subsequently passed it along to her kid, who totally ate the articles up. All of a sudden this kid who hated school took up a keen interest in his science class. It's been one year now and he's now taking the physics class, has joined the science club, and his grades have made an astounding improvement (he's on the honor roll).
For the first time in his life, the kid sees a point to his schooling. School still isn't cool (not by a long shot), but now it provides the means allowing him to accomplish his goals.
It's normal for big releases to come out in November but I think Halo 2 and Half Life 2 are special cases.
Not to mention World of Warcraft and Everquest II. Between those four games, you've pretty well covered the two big genres - Role-play/MMORPGS and FPSers.
"From the other end, it sounds like I'm inside a cardboard box, and lots of other people are complaining about the same thing. No word yet from PalmOne on this problem. Any other 650 owners having problems with their new units?"
Sounds like you answered your own question in the writeup. What are you hoping to gain by raising the issue with Slashdot?
Clue me in - When Microsoft used a similar form of copy protection for Windows XP, Slashdot couldn't have disagreed more. Yet when Valve takes a similar approach, they're applauded.
At least Microsoft provided the option of activating the product over the phone.
As an Immunologist - I can't even begin to count the number of times we've cured RA (EAE), GvHD, various forms of cancer, etc. in mice, only to have the 'cure' fail, or even make the disease worse, in patients.
I'm in strong support the The Science Network (TSN), however will I ever be able to watch it? How much of the general public will be able (forget about willing) to even watch the programming?
I can get PBS without access to cable. I can watch the Discovery Channel with basic cable. Will I have to increase my cable subscription in order to see the channel? While I would love this channel, I simply can't justify increasing my cable subscription from ~$10 per month to ~$40 per month for one channel.
Best of luck to TSN - I'll just have to cheer from the sidelines.
Re:I won't support EMBRYONIC stem cell research un
on
Stem Cell Symposium
·
· Score: 1
Blood and skin cells are different from embryonic cells - that's why we need to engage in embryonic stem cell research.
While we've been able to make psuedo-stem cell-like cells from adult cells, they do not act the same. Similarly, hematopoietic 'stem' cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells - not by a long shot.
I see what you're saying, but be careful as the argument as you stated it would be used against stem cell research (if a cell is a cell is a cell, why use embryos?).
What on earth are you talking about? As someone who engages in immunological/genetic research I can assure you that you're way off the mark.
For starters, comparing the DNA of healthy normals to sick individuals is not a gruesome process. All it takes is a few CC of blood - and the draw is usually combined with the patients' routine blood draws. All patients (and healthy normals) have be informed exactly what the blood will be used for and must give consent. The doctors and scientists involved really do care, really want to help people, and work extremely hard to make things as humane and unintrusive as possible.
Regarding gene knockouts - yes, we make gene knockout mice. These knockout mice have indirectly saved more lives than 911. No one is proposing that we do anything even remotly similar to humans - quite the opposite. Many of the most vocal criticals of 'designer babies' are scientists. Many of the most vocal critics of human cloning are scientists. Ironically, in my experience the largest proponents of these ideas are ill-informed people that have a misguided view of the dangers and benefits DNA manipulation and cloning.
Re:I won't support EMBRYONIC stem cell research un
on
Stem Cell Symposium
·
· Score: 1
What do you propose be done regarding all the frozen embryos held at fertility clinics?
Clearly you can't support throwing them away. Then again, leaving them frozen forever would be no different than jailing someone for life for committing no crime (at some point the embroys will die while frozen). Given the sheer numbers (not to mention the lack of willing volunteer parents) you can't bring all these embryos to term.
Unless a viable alternative is proposed to dealing with these embroys, it seems to me that leaving them frozen in fertility is far more immoral, stupid, and cruel than allowing the embryos to save their fellow humanity.
How many embryos are you saving by not supporting stem cell research? Zero.
For those interested in a bit more background on the Mimivirus (and have access to Science's archives), you can check out the group's previous report on the virus at:
La Scola B, Audic S, Robert C, Jungang L, de Lamballerie X, Drancourt M, Birtles R, Claverie JM, Raoult D (2003) A Giant Virus in Amoebae. Science 299(5615):2033
With the average age of the questioners being ~25, including three in their thirties, I have to question the "youth" of the "Youth Debate".
By the time one reaches their mid-twenties, I would hope that they would see themselves as an adult. Many of my peers and I own homes, have children, and hold well respected jobs - we certainly are not "youth".
I certainly understand, and appreciate, that the organizers of this 'debate' were reaching out to non-senior citizens and that "youth debate" presents greater spin opportunities than "adult debate" or "pre-retirement age debate". However, labeling my age group as "youth" definitely marginalizes us and promotes the slacker Gen X stereotype that we're not ready for adulthood. Besides, I'd much rather the candidates speak to me as an equal, an adult.
Please, when your copy another author's work, cite your source. Not citing the source - effectively passing the work as your own - is totally unacceptable and wrong.
The download is 5MB. 5MB!!! This is what I want in a document editor.
The smaller memory footprint which is ~6MB instead of what they claim is ~30MB for Word...
I've never really understood the need for a program (or it's advocates) to say "We're smaller!" or "We have a smaller memory footprint". In today's world, who cares?
The only people I know who use less than 512MB of memory are those running Windows98 - does a 25MB difference really matter? Besides, Seti@Home and Climate Predictor both take more memory than Word on my computer (15MB for Word vs 17MB for S@H and 51MB for CP).
5MB? Clue me in, 'cause who really uses floppies? 64MB+ Flash Drives... check. 700MB CDs... check. Floppies... haven't seen one in years. With hard drives so cheap, who is really all that pressed for space? I have mp3s that are bigger than 5MB, not to mention my music folder takes up more room than all of Office combined.
Until a program starts pushing the limits (aka Doom3), I simply don't see why the common user (me) should really care about a program's size or memory footprint.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
Evolution is still at work. But instead of diverging, our gene pool has been converging for tens of thousands of years
In other words, as long as there are selective pressures there will be 'evolution'. However, as you mentioned, don't expect any new 'human species' in the next million years or so unless a group of us become truly isolated and face unique selective pressures. Subtle, but important.
Saying that RNAi makes a cell scream "Virus!", and thus destroying the RNA (or cell - you were grossly unclear) is a grossly misleading. RNAi 'knocks down' a gene by complementing the RNA target, leading to the degredation of the target RNA thus knocking down protein expression. Plants have been shown to use RNAi to resist viruses, but that hasn't been shown for mammalian systems (we use toll-like receptors (TLR-3 for dsRNA and TLR-8 for ssRNA specifically) to recognise RNA and induce an interferon response). Now, we often introduce RNAi by way of viral vectors, but that's a whole different story.
In short, the story is about a gentleman who used to be an avid hunter but is now paralyzed from the neck down. The story talks about the adrenaline rush the man experienced and how, for a moment, it gave him a sense of freedom and his old life back. The article also speaks about the mechanics of internet hunting - the 'hunt' isn't so much like a video game as someone is sitting there with the gun talking to the internet hunter.
As you haven't already, you'll soon be amazed by the inability of people in 'positions who should know better' to communicate (either by writing or orally). While many of my peers are very good writers, I know others who are very poor writers and even confuse your and you're. A principle in my wife's company can't write a coherent email for the life of him.
Those who can communicate effectively and intelligently clearly have an advantage in life. However, those who can't may still compete, and sometimes do quite well.
After graduating with a bachleors in biochemistry, I worked for two years at a research institution as a technician making ~$20,000 per year. I then attended graduate school and made ~$18,000 per year. After five years I worked as a post-doc at an academic instituation and made ~$25,000 per year (The NIH recently increased the post-doc salary to $36,000 for a first year post-doc up to $46,000 for a fifth year post-doc). Now, as an assistant professor (which lasts for about 5 years at which point you're reviewed for tenure), I make ~$80,000 per year.
Contrast this with my wife and friends. Two years after graduating from college with an economics degree, my wife made over $80,000 per year. Each of my five friends with business degrees were making over $100,000 per year within four years after graduation. Of my biochemistry peers, those that chose a career outside of research (medicine excluded) did significantly better than those who either worked in science or continued on for their advanced degree. Of my peers with who I obtained a doctorate degree, those who joined industry are doing slightly better (on average ~$100,000 for those without post-docs, ~$120,000 who did) than those who stayed in academic, while those that left science are either doing much better (consulting and writing), or much worse (school teacher).
So, not only do those who presue science achieve a far, far less salary than those who do not, but they're also deeply hurt by all of the income they didn't make during their training. Why do scientists have such big egos? Because we have nothing else.
So, tell me - why should students join science? I'm a scientist, I love science, and I absolutely love my research - but I'd be lying if I said that I don't get frustrated by making far less than my friends while working much, much longer hours. It's not an issue money - it's an issue of compensation. We have advanced degree, we expand the economy, we save lives, and we work incredibly hard - please compensate us appropriately.
Every single institution I've been at bought computers in bulk from Dell, with the OS (windows) pre-installed - only those with special needs (and were pretty computer savy to begin with) used Linux. Linux simply isn't a household name in the desktop market. Besides, practically everyone uses Windows or the Macintosh - sticking with a popular OS (real or perceived, it doesn't matter) reduces the risk of incompatability with the rest of the world.
Most of the "gamers" you speak of are not true gamers, really.
What a bunch of elitist bullshit. What exactly constitues a 'true gamer'? Is a 'true gamer' someone who spends 40+ hours a week gaming, blows through games in a (long) day (missing most of the content on the way - but hey, they 'won'), and then complains that games are 'too short', 'too easy', or 'too cliche'? Sounds a lot like my first roommate in college (1994) - he flunked out.
What those of us who grew up in the Nintendo generation who have families, jobs, and (dare I say) disposable income? It took me one month to complete Fable (took my friend two), my (only) WoW character is a measly lvl 44 (been playing since launch), and I have absolutely no interest in Halo2. Games play a very important role in my life and those of my friends - it gives us a chance to unwind, socalize, and have fun. The games don't define us - we use them as a tool.
What the 'true gamers' don't understand is that they are the minority. Why should the gaming companies cater to you? They're going to end up buying the game anyway. For the rest of us, 'wonderous game play' means simplicity, playing without excel spreadsheets, and the ability to walk away after an hour or two.
Except in this case I don't see how the student is being punished or disciplined. In my experience, these boards were reserved for "I was wrongly accused" or "the punishment is too harsh", not "I disagree with the policy". The latter was reserved for the student government and newspaper.
As the material you are downloading may, as you claim, be acquired through other protocols we see no need for you to use P2P. Seeing as we are neither banning FTP nor HTTP traffic, your ability to pursue your academic interested will not be hindered by our decision. Please discontinue all P2P activity immediately.
Kindly, IT Department
For the first time in his life, the kid sees a point to his schooling. School still isn't cool (not by a long shot), but now it provides the means allowing him to accomplish his goals.
Considering that the military is using America's Army as a recruiting tool, a PR campaign, and a psychological experiment it's in their very best interest to take a such a hard line against any and all hacks.
Not to mention World of Warcraft and Everquest II. Between those four games, you've pretty well covered the two big genres - Role-play/MMORPGS and FPSers.
Sounds like you answered your own question in the writeup. What are you hoping to gain by raising the issue with Slashdot?
At least Microsoft provided the option of activating the product over the phone.
Help please, for those of us who are clueless. Does this game have a single player mode - can someone without an internet connection play this game?
As an Immunologist - I can't even begin to count the number of times we've cured RA (EAE), GvHD, various forms of cancer, etc. in mice, only to have the 'cure' fail, or even make the disease worse, in patients.
I can get PBS without access to cable. I can watch the Discovery Channel with basic cable. Will I have to increase my cable subscription in order to see the channel? While I would love this channel, I simply can't justify increasing my cable subscription from ~$10 per month to ~$40 per month for one channel.
Best of luck to TSN - I'll just have to cheer from the sidelines.
While we've been able to make psuedo-stem cell-like cells from adult cells, they do not act the same. Similarly, hematopoietic 'stem' cells are not the same as embryonic stem cells - not by a long shot.
I see what you're saying, but be careful as the argument as you stated it would be used against stem cell research (if a cell is a cell is a cell, why use embryos?).
For starters, comparing the DNA of healthy normals to sick individuals is not a gruesome process. All it takes is a few CC of blood - and the draw is usually combined with the patients' routine blood draws. All patients (and healthy normals) have be informed exactly what the blood will be used for and must give consent. The doctors and scientists involved really do care, really want to help people, and work extremely hard to make things as humane and unintrusive as possible.
Regarding gene knockouts - yes, we make gene knockout mice. These knockout mice have indirectly saved more lives than 911. No one is proposing that we do anything even remotly similar to humans - quite the opposite. Many of the most vocal criticals of 'designer babies' are scientists. Many of the most vocal critics of human cloning are scientists. Ironically, in my experience the largest proponents of these ideas are ill-informed people that have a misguided view of the dangers and benefits DNA manipulation and cloning.
Clearly you can't support throwing them away. Then again, leaving them frozen forever would be no different than jailing someone for life for committing no crime (at some point the embroys will die while frozen). Given the sheer numbers (not to mention the lack of willing volunteer parents) you can't bring all these embryos to term.
Unless a viable alternative is proposed to dealing with these embroys, it seems to me that leaving them frozen in fertility is far more immoral, stupid, and cruel than allowing the embryos to save their fellow humanity.
How many embryos are you saving by not supporting stem cell research? Zero.
La Scola B, Audic S, Robert C, Jungang L, de Lamballerie X, Drancourt M, Birtles R, Claverie JM, Raoult D (2003) A Giant Virus in Amoebae. Science 299(5615):2033
By the time one reaches their mid-twenties, I would hope that they would see themselves as an adult. Many of my peers and I own homes, have children, and hold well respected jobs - we certainly are not "youth".
I certainly understand, and appreciate, that the organizers of this 'debate' were reaching out to non-senior citizens and that "youth debate" presents greater spin opportunities than "adult debate" or "pre-retirement age debate". However, labeling my age group as "youth" definitely marginalizes us and promotes the slacker Gen X stereotype that we're not ready for adulthood. Besides, I'd much rather the candidates speak to me as an equal, an adult.
Don't they all start off as little guys?
The parent post was taken verbatim from the following website: http://www.alternet.org/election04nv/19519/
The smaller memory footprint which is ~6MB instead of what they claim is ~30MB for Word...
I've never really understood the need for a program (or it's advocates) to say "We're smaller!" or "We have a smaller memory footprint". In today's world, who cares?
The only people I know who use less than 512MB of memory are those running Windows98 - does a 25MB difference really matter? Besides, Seti@Home and Climate Predictor both take more memory than Word on my computer (15MB for Word vs 17MB for S@H and 51MB for CP).
5MB? Clue me in, 'cause who really uses floppies? 64MB+ Flash Drives... check. 700MB CDs... check. Floppies... haven't seen one in years. With hard drives so cheap, who is really all that pressed for space? I have mp3s that are bigger than 5MB, not to mention my music folder takes up more room than all of Office combined.
Until a program starts pushing the limits (aka Doom3), I simply don't see why the common user (me) should really care about a program's size or memory footprint.