Incorrect, that's a _projection_. We might still get a surplus.
"It needs to slow down by at least $1.9 billion more than it's currently going. But with Governor Brown touting a "surplus", you can just bet the CA Legislature is looking to spend that fictional surplus - and then some..."
This year's increase is $4.7B. We'll see how it goes.
Aaaand, this year's budget actually _increases_ the spending slightly. So getting to pure surplus is easy - just slow down the rate of spending increases next year. Oh, and there is not going to be a state bankruptcy in near future.
Certainly, I'm not going to trust any right-wing nut. The great way to tell that they are lying is this: "Their lips are moving".
And in reality, there's no debt crisis in California in any case. It's definitely not 'bankrupt', especially after the recent shuffles that finally kicked away most of Republicans from the local legislature.
Nope, the budget projections are actually pretty solid. The deficit (if any) is going to be tiny, even if there's no outright surplus. Basically, there's no debt or deficit crisis anymore in CA. Not anything close to the cries of "we're bankrupt, so lets just kill all the immigrants!!!"
Yes, California does have a surplus or something very close to it - it's pretty close to zero anyway. What California definitely does NOT have is any sort of debt crisis.
Yeah, we prefer to crossbreed it with other wild strains, introducing known allergens in the process. Seriously, domestication of wheat (which was done by cross breeding several wild strains) resulted in wheat picking up allergens. If it was GMO then it won't be EVER approved.
The variants of this virus family are present everywhere, they have been used for DNA studies since forever. Genetic scientists at some point of time used to work with several grams of pure viral matter. With no measurable health effects.
"Just because cancer is a category for many different diseases does not mean we can't cure them one at a time. An emerging technology that could change the outcome for cancer patients is DNA sequencing of tumor vs. healthy cells to determine precisely which medication is effective for treating a specific kind of cancer."
Sequencing won't help a shit against cancer, cancer genomes are incredibly variant and fast-changing, there is no single "lung cancer" genome - there's a lot of rapidly mutating genomes with very uneven distribution. And it can rapidly evolve resistance to most therapeutic methods. May be you'll be able to tell "this cancer culture has cells with upregulated protein XXXX which results in higher tolerance for radiation". But then what? Knowing exactly what will kill the patient doesn't really help you here.
And yes, I have actually worked on a sequencing project for cancer research. Cancer is a tough disease.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? The author ineptly reimplemented a non-threaded HTTP server in Java and wonders why his "two classes" do not work well. Please, learn how real Java webapps work - install Tomcat or Jetty and create a simple servlet. Then use "ab" (Apache Benchmark) tool to measure its performance.
Quite possible. But hormones are definitely not the problem here - her endocrine system is normal. Besides, lack of growth hormone or response to the growth hormone has wildly different symptoms (they are not pretty) while this girl is basically a normal toddler without major deformities.
Oh, and we'll be sequencing her whole DNA (hopefully in a few months) now that there is enough funding for this.
Well, I'm actually a member of the team that works with her DNA. Right now we are busy with phasing her genomic data. We are trying to resolve for each mutation (SNP) on which chromosome it is present. Our technology is basically the only cheap way to do it. Unfortunately we only have her transcriptome data, not the complete genomic data. Other teams have not found anything excessively unusual, so it is entirely possible that an unusual combination of recessive mutations is responsible for this condition.
"I don't really follow. How, exactly, are "assault weapons" only useful in mass shootings? Do they have some sort of distinguishing feature that makes them more lethal or dangerous than other common, semi-automatic rifles like the Browning BAR?"
Several features: large magazine capacity, semi-automatic fire, (fairly) compact size and fast reload.
Care to read it completely? Especially the section about semiautomatic guns. Most of the seized weapons are handguns, which don't need to originate in the US.
Assault weapons are only useful for mass shootings. They CAN be used for other purposes, but generally can be easily substituted with other weapons. They are lousy for hunting (unless you want to shoot animals tethered to a tree), they can be substituted with other rifles in competitive shooting and they are useless for self-defense.
The punitive damages are up to $50,000 per infringement. That's way more than the average price per photo. Besides, they'd have to remove it from web-accessible archives.
I was writing "almost nobody carries a concealed gun" but I guess I'd accidentally deleted it. And I'm all for trampling minorities' rights if these rights actively endanger the rest of us.
"Uh, not sure where that came from, but I don't think that gun is contagious."
Slashdot Mirror
Incorrect, that's a _projection_. We might still get a surplus.
"It needs to slow down by at least $1.9 billion more than it's currently going. But with Governor Brown touting a "surplus", you can just bet the CA Legislature is looking to spend that fictional surplus - and then some..."
This year's increase is $4.7B. We'll see how it goes.
$1.9B out of $97.5B? Trivial.
Aaaand, this year's budget actually _increases_ the spending slightly. So getting to pure surplus is easy - just slow down the rate of spending increases next year. Oh, and there is not going to be a state bankruptcy in near future.
Yup. I'm kinda vested in a society where people don't die on streets of hunger.
Certainly, I'm not going to trust any right-wing nut. The great way to tell that they are lying is this: "Their lips are moving".
And in reality, there's no debt crisis in California in any case. It's definitely not 'bankrupt', especially after the recent shuffles that finally kicked away most of Republicans from the local legislature.
Nope, the budget projections are actually pretty solid. The deficit (if any) is going to be tiny, even if there's no outright surplus. Basically, there's no debt or deficit crisis anymore in CA. Not anything close to the cries of "we're bankrupt, so lets just kill all the immigrants!!!"
Yes, California does have a surplus or something very close to it - it's pretty close to zero anyway. What California definitely does NOT have is any sort of debt crisis.
Duh. If the reality contradicts your opinions - to hell with the reality.
"They've been bankrupt for a long time already, and it just gets worse."
Yeah, they've just got a budget _surplus_ ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-10/california-to-post-851-million-budget-surplus-brown-projects.html ). It's so much worse... And your typical misinformed right-wing nut rant is just that - a misinformed rant.
Yeah, we prefer to crossbreed it with other wild strains, introducing known allergens in the process. Seriously, domestication of wheat (which was done by cross breeding several wild strains) resulted in wheat picking up allergens. If it was GMO then it won't be EVER approved.
The variants of this virus family are present everywhere, they have been used for DNA studies since forever. Genetic scientists at some point of time used to work with several grams of pure viral matter. With no measurable health effects.
Looks like Google is simply paying for transit to another networks. Nothing to see here, move along.
"Intelligent"? I don't think this word means what you think it means.
"Just because cancer is a category for many different diseases does not mean we can't cure them one at a time. An emerging technology that could change the outcome for cancer patients is DNA sequencing of tumor vs. healthy cells to determine precisely which medication is effective for treating a specific kind of cancer."
Sequencing won't help a shit against cancer, cancer genomes are incredibly variant and fast-changing, there is no single "lung cancer" genome - there's a lot of rapidly mutating genomes with very uneven distribution. And it can rapidly evolve resistance to most therapeutic methods. May be you'll be able to tell "this cancer culture has cells with upregulated protein XXXX which results in higher tolerance for radiation". But then what? Knowing exactly what will kill the patient doesn't really help you here.
And yes, I have actually worked on a sequencing project for cancer research. Cancer is a tough disease.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? The author ineptly reimplemented a non-threaded HTTP server in Java and wonders why his "two classes" do not work well. Please, learn how real Java webapps work - install Tomcat or Jetty and create a simple servlet. Then use "ab" (Apache Benchmark) tool to measure its performance.
Quite possible. But hormones are definitely not the problem here - her endocrine system is normal. Besides, lack of growth hormone or response to the growth hormone has wildly different symptoms (they are not pretty) while this girl is basically a normal toddler without major deformities.
Oh, and we'll be sequencing her whole DNA (hopefully in a few months) now that there is enough funding for this.
Yes, Browning BAR might be a semiautomatic gun that should be banned. So?
There's nothing terribly important next to the telomeres. Besides they are good for something like 150 years.
Well, I'm actually a member of the team that works with her DNA. Right now we are busy with phasing her genomic data. We are trying to resolve for each mutation (SNP) on which chromosome it is present. Our technology is basically the only cheap way to do it. Unfortunately we only have her transcriptome data, not the complete genomic data. Other teams have not found anything excessively unusual, so it is entirely possible that an unusual combination of recessive mutations is responsible for this condition.
"I don't really follow. How, exactly, are "assault weapons" only useful in mass shootings? Do they have some sort of distinguishing feature that makes them more lethal or dangerous than other common, semi-automatic rifles like the Browning BAR?"
Several features: large magazine capacity, semi-automatic fire, (fairly) compact size and fast reload.
Care to read it completely? Especially the section about semiautomatic guns. Most of the seized weapons are handguns, which don't need to originate in the US.
Increase in sexual assault is mostly caused in stricter reporting requirements for it and looser definition of "assault".
Assault weapons are only useful for mass shootings. They CAN be used for other purposes, but generally can be easily substituted with other weapons. They are lousy for hunting (unless you want to shoot animals tethered to a tree), they can be substituted with other rifles in competitive shooting and they are useless for self-defense.
The punitive damages are up to $50,000 per infringement. That's way more than the average price per photo. Besides, they'd have to remove it from web-accessible archives.
No, they would still need to acquire a license to this image. Damages only cover the past infringements.
I was writing "almost nobody carries a concealed gun" but I guess I'd accidentally deleted it. And I'm all for trampling minorities' rights if these rights actively endanger the rest of us.
"Uh, not sure where that came from, but I don't think that gun is contagious."
Well, it is (think about it). CDC also studies things like slipping injuries and deaths ( http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/fallcost.html ). Yet somehow firearm studies got banned.