I'm a little confused, though - they've created a mouse without NK cells... in the hopes of finding ways to produce more NK cells. So they've found a way that doesn't work?
I suppose this just gives them more data to work with in clarifying how the system operates and how it can be tweaked to produce desired outcomes.
I agree entirely. The summary talks about heros, but most people's adored rolemodel is more likely to be a non-productive sportsman or actor. Sure, they're pretty to look at, but they don't actually do anything materially useful. Compare that with the recently deceased Norman Borlog who changed the world, but nobody knows his name. Perhaps if lauded and paid scientists like we do sportsmen - make it sexy and rewarding to do science - people would see them like the heros they are.
The problem with science, though, is that it isn't sexy. By the time you're an elite scientist, you're old and grey whereas elite sportsmen are young and vigourous and all the things our hindbrains crave. And science is slow - you can't follow Fermilab like some do a baseball team. Let's face it: science is slow and tedious and not very exciting day-to-day.
We could give scientists better pay, but capitalism isn't set up to reward the scientist - just the person who exploits their work. The modern mindset is to make money at any cost, and the idea of paying scientists to learn about the fundamental nature of the universe is disruptively out of step with the cash-squeezing mentality of the world.
What are we left with? The fruits of their labour. Scientists discover things of beauty, magnificent vistas of science that are accessible to all. The fact is that most people are taught to shut up and pay attention to the TV, rather than think creatively or examine their lives.
The problem with science isn't science - perhaps it's the very nature of our culture that rejects learning and instead values money, simple ideas and sex appeal. Unless we instill principles early on that value science and learning, it will never happen.
... so that they can keep a diseased population in Africa, which now they can use to guilt-trip Americans and citizens of other developed nations into providing funds to their pet projects
I wonder if that's true, though. I don't think many green protesters have a vested interest in keeping the world hungry. I suspect it's more that they want a cause to advocate, an issue to get angry about. It's much easier to get angry at a single identifiable corporation than it is to be angry at the faceless global economics that spawns hunger in the first place.
Furthermore I suspect that it's not them trying to protect their own power, but rather their attempt to feel powerful - to feel like they can make a difference when faced with forces that really are beyond their control. Demonstrate, hold a picket, get a law passed, go home and enjoy the high standard of living they now don't have to feel so guilty about because they scored a point for the team.
And yet he undoubtedly saved millions from starvation through his work. The green nutters won't even think about it. They probably have no idea what was done to produce these crops - they wouldn't even care.
Scientists and engineers help find answers and solutions, radicals and reactionaries just complain. When they have a better solution for feeding the world, I'll take them seriously.
Whatever became of those autostereoscopy displays? They eliminate glasses entirely - the struck me as being the future of 3D displays. It basically has the effect that an additional back-light modulating high-frequency LCD panel controls the incidence at which light is transmitted through subsequent colour pixel layers - thus giving you a an appropriate view of a 3D image, depending on the viewing angle.
To clarify, I'm talking about military power and endurance-boosting exoskeletons here, not rehabilitation systems. I have no experience with them, or their effectiveness.
It's not a joke, but it is old news. Other projects like HULC and their ilk have been doing the media rounds for years now. They got a lot of media attention even though they failed at their basic goal - lowering metabolic cost. Since walking in a robot suit with any lag is so much more taxing than walking uninhibited, none of the systems to date have been usable for extended periods of time without operator fatigue*. I suspect that's why we've seen them at all: they were failures.
Colour me paranoid, but I think the exoskeleton success stories won't be seen in Popular Mechanics until they're already obsolete.
*Yes, I've worked on robotics exoskeletons, and have spoken with other people who develop them.
That is entirely my point. It's stretched by pretty warlike toys they've made but they aren't selling you the Hind-D playset. Frankly, I'll take what I can get.
I have a dream: that my little children will one day live in a world where they will be able to buy kits online, not designed by marketer, but by the contents of their creative character.
Imagine designing a kit in a Lego CAD program and then automatically exporting the BOM to an order form that takes a screenshot of the finished item, a manual and contents list and produced a boxed, bagged set that is immediately shipped to you.
You're absolutely right. My lego pieces from nigh on two decades ago still fit and hold. The very few occasional weak pieces have failed, but the rank and file pieces still fit and still hold their colour. Nobody but nobody can tell me that Lego bricks were shoddy. A toy that lasts, and is still played with, for 10-20 years is frankly worth paying the premium.
I have to say, I respected Lego for its policy of "We don't make war toys". It was an admirable thing for a company in this day and age. I'm sorry to see they've stretched that pretty far, but I think I'd be sorrier to see Lego fade away entirely. I just wish they'd bring the old sets back.
The fourteenth word in the bold text there, "if", is what's known as a conditional. Conditionals are sometimes true, sometimes not. You might interpret "if" to mean "Were it the case". Now, 'were it the case' that killing myself, or anyone else for that matter, would save the planet, I'd be the first to volunteer.
I don't advocate the killing of people, including myself because it wouldn't actually save any from irreversible ecological destruction. Reality is it would make hardly any difference and there are much better ways for me, and others, to help out. As the ELF people have discovered, violence doesn't really help the cause.
Jesus, did anyone actually read the second half of my post?
I did - hence all the definitions. My point was that it wasn't immediately clear. It's always good form to define three letter acronyms (TLAs) before you use them. No trolling intended, folks.
Acquired brain injury?
Agribusiness International?
Advanced Bureau of Investigation?
Alabama Bureau of Investigation?
American Beverage Institute?
American Biographical Institute?
American Broadband Inc.?
Anheuser-Busch InBev?
Ankle-Brachial Index?
Arabian Business International?
Applied Biosystems?
Association of British Insurers?
Auditory brainstem implant?
Association Biologique Internationale?
Oh! You must mean Application binary interface, a low-level computer programming interface. Right, now it all makes sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, to clarify - they also want to turn off faulty NK cells. That makes more sense.
I suppose this just gives them more data to work with in clarifying how the system operates and how it can be tweaked to produce desired outcomes.
The problem with science, though, is that it isn't sexy. By the time you're an elite scientist, you're old and grey whereas elite sportsmen are young and vigourous and all the things our hindbrains crave. And science is slow - you can't follow Fermilab like some do a baseball team. Let's face it: science is slow and tedious and not very exciting day-to-day.
We could give scientists better pay, but capitalism isn't set up to reward the scientist - just the person who exploits their work. The modern mindset is to make money at any cost, and the idea of paying scientists to learn about the fundamental nature of the universe is disruptively out of step with the cash-squeezing mentality of the world.
What are we left with? The fruits of their labour. Scientists discover things of beauty, magnificent vistas of science that are accessible to all. The fact is that most people are taught to shut up and pay attention to the TV, rather than think creatively or examine their lives.
The problem with science isn't science - perhaps it's the very nature of our culture that rejects learning and instead values money, simple ideas and sex appeal. Unless we instill principles early on that value science and learning, it will never happen.
Old greek proverb: anything worth knowing is difficult to learn.
... so that they can keep a diseased population in Africa, which now they can use to guilt-trip Americans and citizens of other developed nations into providing funds to their pet projects
Citation needed.
Furthermore I suspect that it's not them trying to protect their own power, but rather their attempt to feel powerful - to feel like they can make a difference when faced with forces that really are beyond their control. Demonstrate, hold a picket, get a law passed, go home and enjoy the high standard of living they now don't have to feel so guilty about because they scored a point for the team.
Scientists and engineers help find answers and solutions, radicals and reactionaries just complain. When they have a better solution for feeding the world, I'll take them seriously.
Where has this technology gone?
If they were completely dead, all you could do is check their pockets for change.
Please see this comment, made immediately after my initial post, which clarifies that I was referring exclusively to military and power-boosting exoskeletons: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1361809&cid=29362603
Sweet! You've made me both happy and poor with a single link.
To clarify, I'm talking about military power and endurance-boosting exoskeletons here, not rehabilitation systems. I have no experience with them, or their effectiveness.
Colour me paranoid, but I think the exoskeleton success stories won't be seen in Popular Mechanics until they're already obsolete.
*Yes, I've worked on robotics exoskeletons, and have spoken with other people who develop them.
That is entirely my point. It's stretched by pretty warlike toys they've made but they aren't selling you the Hind-D playset. Frankly, I'll take what I can get.
Imagine designing a kit in a Lego CAD program and then automatically exporting the BOM to an order form that takes a screenshot of the finished item, a manual and contents list and produced a boxed, bagged set that is immediately shipped to you.
Seriously Lego, where are you?
I've always seen myself as an ADD/GURPS guy.
You're absolutely right. My lego pieces from nigh on two decades ago still fit and hold. The very few occasional weak pieces have failed, but the rank and file pieces still fit and still hold their colour. Nobody but nobody can tell me that Lego bricks were shoddy. A toy that lasts, and is still played with, for 10-20 years is frankly worth paying the premium.
I have to say, I respected Lego for its policy of "We don't make war toys". It was an admirable thing for a company in this day and age. I'm sorry to see they've stretched that pretty far, but I think I'd be sorrier to see Lego fade away entirely. I just wish they'd bring the old sets back.
A screw.
That day, a part of me died.
They're not selling out, they're cashing in!
The "freewheel" (auto-running on and on) lasts too long, becomes a nigger then dies
I see what you did there.
I don't advocate the killing of people, including myself because it wouldn't actually save any from irreversible ecological destruction. Reality is it would make hardly any difference and there are much better ways for me, and others, to help out. As the ELF people have discovered, violence doesn't really help the cause.
Jesus, did anyone actually read the second half of my post?
I did - hence all the definitions. My point was that it wasn't immediately clear. It's always good form to define three letter acronyms (TLAs) before you use them. No trolling intended, folks.
Acquired brain injury? Agribusiness International? Advanced Bureau of Investigation? Alabama Bureau of Investigation? American Beverage Institute? American Biographical Institute? American Broadband Inc.? Anheuser-Busch InBev? Ankle-Brachial Index? Arabian Business International? Applied Biosystems? Association of British Insurers? Auditory brainstem implant? Association Biologique Internationale?
Oh! You must mean Application binary interface, a low-level computer programming interface. Right, now it all makes sense.
The real question is 'would it help'? Odds are, no - the rest of my post explains this.