Obviously, you don't have a use for a quantum computer if you can't find a way to determine if it's a quantum computer. If it's just speed, what you want is a super-computer. If it's the ability to perform certain calculations, they simply don't work on a classical computer (or take eternity, even for a super-computer).
Phenylpiracetam actually carries a phenyl group. Methylphenedate and dexamphetamine also carry a phenyl group, which is where the primary effect of those comes from. Phenylpiracetam causes the same stimulant effects as amphetamine, mainly, as well as the same physical changes in relation to tolerance--that being a reduction in density of D2 dopamine receptors and a loss of dopamine sensitivity.
Phenylpiracetam has the phenyl stimulant mechanism of action and the racetam mechanism of action. Both.
Mark Shriner edited an interesting research compilation, although there's piles and piles of these. Assertions of toxicity aren't much covered, but there's some discussion about getting high off Methylphenedate and Dexamphetamine. The main concern is that the amount required for pharmacological effectiveness is fairly close to the amount that causes euphoria; comparisons to cocaine are made for a neurological reference, but not really for magnitude or toxicity's sake.
Dexamphetamine is better than Methylphenedate by far, which is why it's now much more prescribed. I mean really, there's a medical condition called "methylphenedate psychosis", and it's almost guaranteed if you're on MPH for more than a year. They had me on anti-psychotics because of MPH psychosis--this was routine and common. Adderall causes worse psychosis, but much less often.
I could always have a friend run a clinical trial. I mean hell, they let them get away with anything here. A couple dudes I knew in college had an ad up for clinical trials for... wait for it... spiritual meditation while under the influence of psylocybin. Sponsored and conducted by the university here (John's Hopkins). This goes on constantly--we've got kids in college genetically modifying HIV and injecting it into people with cancer to try and cure cancer (spoiler: it worked). It's everything from incredible medical breakthroughs to just probing around for more information about what happens when you get high. You can't deny that ADHD research is interesting, or that the similarity in known mechanisms of action doesn't make phenotropil a good candidate drug. This is a perfect medical research topic for a Ph.D..
Placebo effect is kind of bounded. You can't placebo away dissociation or an inability to focus, just like you can't placebo away cancer or alzheimers.
Yeah, but that comes with all kinds of shit... morphine is awesome, then you come off morphine and go "oh man this sucks". If I'm already in pain, I think I'll just live with it. Or kill myself. Nobody has ever given me a good story about having had morphine in the hospital. Ditto Xanax... had a coworker who said when he left his Xanax prescription behind it was... a bad couple weeks.
The only real reason they give you opiate drugs for pain is because of the whole killing yourself thing. Yeah, pain can be that bad.
What's worse is we push profitable drugs. I put myself on phenotropil (a high dose--people recognize the stimulant effect at 100mg, but reading ADHD research and doing molecular composition and mass analysis I've figured out it should be about 20-25mg twice per day), and that's had miraculous effects on the ADHD--and the dissociation (which I've tended to use as a tool--but holy shit being a part of the real world is overwhelming), and even the sociopathy (emotional centers of my brain are hooking back up). Of course, Dextroamphetamine and Methylphenedate are more profitable... oddly enough, since they're also insanely generic. Adderall is multiple Dex salts and a 12.5% load of Levoamphetamine salt, which have widely varied half-lives so not really a good idea.
The worst part? Phenotropil's side effects include a headache from my brain starting to cannibilize itself for required acetylcholine--this is the same headache you get from studying too hard--so I'm also intaking a crazy amount of choline supplements (about 1200-1500mg/day)--and insomnia. Methylphenedate? Psychosis. Dex? Also psychosis, but less severe than Methylphenedate. They're both systemic toxins, as well as neurotoxins; phenotropil is well-tolerated and is neuroprotective. The dosage window is pretty narrow--high enough for a clinical effect, but not so high as to induce nasty side effects or toxicity, is hard with MPH and Amphetamine; Phenotropil it's just avoiding tolerance to the stimulant effect, which is why I said the dosage should be lower (I'm taking 100mg every day, but 25mg twice per day would be better; the same low-dose tactic is used to avoid Dextroamphetamine tolerance, which follows the same mechanism).
In short: the drugs as prescribed are horribly bad for you; the drugs that aren't prescribed have fewer side effects and are probably (not proven, but believed with rather high confidence) actually good for you. Phenotropil is neuroprotective: it prevents brain damage.
I take a B vitamin... out of habit now, I guess. I was previously using SAM-e to maintain a hypomanic state, which requires B9 and B12 to prevent headaches and other side effects. Megavitamins are useless, and vitamin supplementation is only useful if you're deficient. Choline supplementation is probably the only universal one for that--250mg CDP Choline/day supplementation would be good for most people--but even that's not strictly necessary.
Nintendo has shot for low-price high-value. I am consistently impressed with Nintendo, and unimpressed with Sony and Microsoft catering. Old Sega also was impressive--the DreamCast was fantastic, the games on it were iffy though; third-party vastly outperformed first-party, contrary to Nintendo's habit of releasing impossibly awesome first-party games like Zelda and Metroid.
Nintendo always had the best controllers. The dog bone on the SNES was slightly more ergonomic than Sega's croissant; the N64 mis-step wasn't so bad, and brought plenty of improvements over older designs; the Game Cube had the best handheld controller in history (Dual Shock is close, hence why Sony abandoned the banana); and then they just completely jumped to a new platform with the Wii. Wii U was a mis-step like N64: interesting concept, but... this time I think the multi-screen thing is "a nice idea that we can't make work". Meanwhile the competition has the Kinect: an upgraded EyeToy, not really a new platform; it gets a lot of talk but I don't know of anyone who really uses that as a primary controller for any reasonable amount of play (remember: the Wiimote is THE controller); I liken the Kinect to the Wii Balance Board in that respect, maybe even the WiiU game pad--intended to be primary, but let's face it... we all prefer the Wiimote and use it wherever possible.
Nintendo has put out some of the best games--they even started entire concepts like the MetroidVania style of gameplay present in Zelda and Metroid (and Castlevania, eventually). Microsoft has put out Halo--a session game, not a play-through game. Sony put out a platform, and occasionally Crash Bandicoot--the same bargain-bin shovelware as all the other no-name LJN shit. Nintendo platforms have hosted the greats--Capcom, Square, Enix, even Sega came to Nintendo after their downfall, although they make shit games now.
And what have they fallen to? XBox One? Don't kid yourself. Nintendo falls to... Android. To iOS. None of us saw this coming; we all saw the writing on the wall, commented about it in jest, but who really expected cell phones to break Nintendo? People don't want epics; they want time wasters, amazing graphical eye-candy or stupid little Angry Birds shit. Square-Enix isn't solidly fixed on Nintendo as they were ages ago; Capcom is still the top-of-the-line, but now people have lost interest--Capcom still does exactly what they did so long ago, but people have moved on just as they had from fighting games to RPGs to racing games to FPS. Once upon a time, the Playstation was shiny and exciting; but people lost interest by PS2... Final Fantasy and Gran Turisimo drove people to the PS2 (I hated racing games, but was in the RPG crowd). Now Nintendo faces the same, but all the shiny things are on cell phones.
Thus Nintendo does what it always has done: they do all they can, the best they can, and await results. They also cheat a little. Nintendo emerged from the smoking wreckage of the 1984 Video Game Crash with Rob the Robotic Operating Buddy, selling their game console as a "robotic toy" because KB Toys wouldn't stock a "Video Game". Now they're selling "Fitness Trainers". They've gone to digital distribution, but they'll have to open their distribution channel more so that more indie developers can get on it, and so rolling patches don't cost $3000 a pop. Indie games are crowd-pleasers: they're the last vestiges of the powerful and brilliant hand of the market, the one motivated by creativity and idealism and need rather than profit and security. People just put whatever they think would be awesome in indie games; they often fail--you don't hear about those--but once in a while you get a black swan like Hell Yeah or Braid.
If I were Nintendo, I would open the franchises. I'd create the new genre of NonCan, non-cannon third-party use of assets. Metroid SR388, Rockman X Infinity, Super Metroid Invincible Edition, etc. Stamp official permission on any damn thing with your own name on it, let people invent new game play elements for you, take a royalty if it's sold and pay one if you redistribute. That will draw some serious attention.
Infringement is a silly concept to begin with. If you randomly generate a pile of bits that's exactly like some other pile of bits, that's non-infringing. If you discover some magic way to randomly generate TV movies without starting with the movie itself, that's not infringing. If you seed it with a movie, or generate movies and distribute a seed to do it (i.e. hyper-compression), that's infringing. Why? Origination. Not result, origination.
Linking to something can be done with the earnest understanding that it doesn't really contribute. I found this with a google search. Everybody knows about this. Here's a download, there's a ridiculous amount of discussion here. _THIS_SITE_[link] hosts goobers of child pornography and is run by a child human trafficking ring in Nevada and I've been SCREAMING at the DOJ for a decade and they simply do not give a shit because they're being paid off. And so on.
If the intent is not to support infringement, but rather to convey information, that's different than linking to infringe. If infringement is critical mass--if you want it, you can have it in 5 minutes--and we're talking about something--say a leaked NDA--linking to it has value, and NOT linking to it does not preserve value.
It's some weird thing about bad outcomes versus bad intent.
They're talking about mixing human and animal tissue to capitalize on specific traits. This is engineered biological components--engineered humans. Not genetically engineered, but physically engineered, like engineered wood.
You can have your arm replaced with a majorly upgraded arm? Legs that can run so fucking fast...
It's a counter-statement against all the wild claims made in a popular sillhouette man comic, where it is asserted that publicly-provided post-secondary education (college) reduces income inequality--helps the poor.
College education is a speculative market. In the past 20 years, the US has had many high-profile bubbles where this speculation has destroyed students. For example: the dot-com boom made for a huge demand for Web programmers and designers; there was a nursing shortage in the US which caused a huge level of enrollment into nursing school; accounting was in major demand; and so on.
In each case, certain careers were high-dollar. Web designers, programmers, nurses, accountants, all $100k-$250k salaries. Then in 4-6 short years, all these people flood out and saturate the market; most of them can't get jobs, and the ones that can are making $40k (tech workers are still making $60k, but nurses make Wal-Mart salary). External events have caused problems too, like the dotcom crash or Arthur Anderson fiasco. They've also caused great opportunity not capitalized on: Exxon Valdez resulted in major labor shortages.
In a market with government-provided higher education or, as in the US, with government-secured loans, everyone suffers the cost of education: the burden weakens the economy, slowing growth and destroying some wealth. It also creates wealth, because of the wealth created by education. With government-secured loans, the "everyone" factor is that you can only get an education by taking your own risk; with government-provided higher education, the "everyone" factor is that you pay taxes for it.
So that frames the question: is the wealth created greater than the economic cost (the wealth destroyed)? Let's first accept an important and true piece of information: it is unsustainable for people to pay for their own education. Now let's examine the failure modes.
If the government does not support higher education, only rich kids can get a college education. They get infinite tries. They're also rare, and businesses must pay for them... $200k, $300k, $500k salaries. Worse yet, the lack of skilled labor hinders business strategic goals: businesses must bait labor off other businesses with ever-increasing salaries, and may lose said labor in the same way. So only hiring rich kids is unsustainable: it costs too fucking much and it prevents the business from actually doing what it needs to do, causing them to lag behind their competitors. This is toxic as hell to small business.
In the above scenario, it's cheaper for the business to simply employ entrant workers at a low salary, plus generous education benefit. Miyomoto Musashi wrote in his Book of Five Rings that a foreman must be all of a carpenter before he can be a foreman; he wrote as well that a foreman knows that a skilled carpenter can carve furniture, while the unskilled plane floors, or the even less skilled lay joists, or at least cut wedges. Each of these things takes time, and a skilled carpenter taking 20 minutes to cut wedges is wasting a lot of time of extreme value; thus adding an unskilled worker can add as much value as adding a skilled worker.
Knowing this, we can realize that strategically expanding your labor with lower-skilled workers and developing them into higher-skilled workers comes at the cost of education. It does not come at the cost of supporting a lower-skilled worker who produces minimal output, because the lower-skilled tasks required are still relevant as demand for higher-skilled workers--which you have in abundance--increases. Thus when you move 40 hours of low-skilled work off a high-skilled worker to an entrant, you are gaining the same benefit as hiring n a new high-skilled worker. The cost comes in education, which is offset by the lower wage of a low-skilled worker as compared to a high-skilled worker.
This means that a business takes exceedingly small risk to hire and train skilled employees as needed. Skilled employees may start a
That is true, but that's not illegal. Poorly thought out, but not illegal.
Posting the street address of a victim of assault and/or rape who was on the sex offender registry for touching a 14 year old girl might be illegal. Not because he was on the sex offender registry, no. It might be illegal when somebody shows that a reasonable person would know your article would draw more violence and assault and anti-social behavior, and that you willfully put that person in danger instead of just being negligent and stupid. There will be HELL to pay if the tone of your argument falls under the legal doctrine of "Fighting Words" and people believe you were actively TRYING to cause trouble for the person.
My issue with embryonic stem cell research is it's an incredibly bad hack. Essentially you need to jump through all kinds of loopy hoops to make it work, then it tends to run amock (tumors), and even if it did work you have the same rejection issues as organ transplants (fixable by using your own DNA to seed an embryo as a start).
Research into embryonic stem cells has never showed "promise"; it has always been an idealistic on-paper pursuit. There's lots of promise in the Alcubierre warp drive in the same way (all implications). Meanwhile adult stem cell research has consistently produced results, and over time these results have come at an accelerated rate; there is often research into making adult stem cells more multipotent, and in this case pluripotent, which--given the relative ease with which we can apply them to new treatments--just opens the floodgates and allows even more rapid advancement.
To me, embryonic stem cell research at large is a waste of time. It's an academic pursuit, and should be pursued as such; but real research dollars diverted towards real-world applicable medical research should go directly to adult stem cell research. When we research real-world space travel--how are we going to get the next batch of satellites into space?--we research new rocket engines; when we research negative energy and faster-than-light drives, we acknowledge that we're just trying to get the new building blocks to, someday, build new things that we can't possibly do today.
When the decision is made on how much money to send to "fringe research" and how much to send to "applicable research", I don't want to see brainless monkeys sending precious medical research dollars intended to generate miracle cures TOMORROW toward fringe embryonic stem cell research that won't generate anything useful for DECADES. Send your fringe research budget money that way.
Of course, if you hype up embryonic stem cell research enough, that will be where the investors run, where the grants go, and where public opinion (which boosts stock prices) falls. That means you can make a lot of money by luring investors onto your medical venture that's going nowhere, getting grant money for your medical venture that's going nowhere, then taking your company public and holding stock in your medical venture that's going nowhere until it's starting to peak over. That doesn't happen for fringe research; fringe research gets a justifiably smaller budget because it's important next decade, while real research gets a bigger budget because it's important yesterday.
No, the problem is most people know they've been told "embryonic stem cells will cure every disease" or "you can make anything out of embryonic stem cells." Most people just know "stem cells" and are unaware that there's a difference; the word "embryonic" is just attached. Whenever non-embryonic stem cells are brought in, the only purpose of attaching "embryonic" is to groom your audience to follow your political opinions.
Then you get the year 2000, with everyone arguing over stem cell bans that don't exist (Clinton banned embryonic stem cell research; Bush lifted the ban, with large restrictions). Big political issue, nobody understands the difference, they don't understand the medical position, the legislative position, or even that they're discussing a subset of a type of research--embryonic stem cell research is research into manipulating stem cells, just as adult stem cell research, but using a different starting point; this makes the issue much smaller than people ever believed.
Then you get a voter base with incomplete knowledge. Then they may select the worst candidate because they believe all the minimally important issues are incredibly important, while all the maximally-important issues are dismissed or simply unknown.
What a loaded phrase. These are pluripotent adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cell treatments have never panned out; yet we have hundreds of adult stem cell treatments. This is extending the adult stem cell treatment into what people--political people--have theorized embryonic stem cells could be used for, but which has never actually worked out well.
The term "embryonic" is often crammed into positive stem cell research in any way possible so that people can have a stronger pro-stem-cell argument base to argue for embryonic stem cell research. The term "adult" is often dropped when that's not possible, so we can just say "stem cells". You'll see research that allows us to create cells "like embryonic stem cells" or make cells "behave like embryonic stem cells" to achieve things we've never honestly achieved from embryonic stem cells not because of lack of research, but because they just don't fucking behave--ESS aren't just pluripotent, but they're essentially seeds that are pre-programmed (metaphor) to grow into whole bodies... or tumors.
If you want to regrow tissue, adult stem cells are the way to go. If you want to regrow a variety of tissue, pluripotent adult stem cells are the way to go (or as close to it as you can get). If you want to regrow organs... that's going to be tough; you need not just pluripotency, but you need to induce the mechanisms executed after embryonic stem cells start to differentiate, but before they become simply pluripotent--you need to not grow a whole body, but grow an arm or a kidney rather than just a sheet of tissue. That's an intermediate state that's going to be hard to trigger from either end.
My first thought entirely. Of all the education debates, providing education does have a serious cultural impact: it empowers people. Universal higher education is severely detrimental--especially to the lower class--but it still empowers people: it gives them discrete skills and critical thinking skills, and makes them interact with the world around them.
When an educated person fails, he decides the system around him is broken. This is a natural consequence of education: you have all these skills, you feel you can apply yourself, and yet you are not being allowed to do so. No faceless evil across the other end of the earth is doing this to you. When you are uneducated and starving, you feel there is nothing you can do; all explanations are readily accepted, especially if we blame someone else.
Education is the enemy of government. Strong education makes government subordinate; weak education makes government powerful. Since there are more citizens than government, it is strictly optimal for government to be subordinate to the needs of the people.
The problem is The Pirate Bay exists to facilitate illegal activity. Some jackass linking to some leaked thing on his Web site isn't providing a repository for illegal things; he's providing commentary and repeating information. It's the difference between coaching people to rape girls versus complaining to your buddies that these college girls keep ducking down dark alleys on campus thinking it's safe when it's not and dey gunna get raeped: both of these put people at risk of rape, but nobody is going to throw beer bottles at you for the second.
I've done cooking that relies on high temperature cookware on range top. Yes a lot of heat convects around; that doesn't mean the cookware isn't getting hotter. Also if you look at cooking with a wok, you'll find electric never works.
You're right, really. Stallman's "free" is "You are not free to do with what you create as you wish; you must allow others to do with what you create as they wish, which precludes things such as retaining a secret or selling a product." He has stated outright that he wants a software environment with so much GPL that it's impossible to avoid it, so all software must be GPL.
Wrong. OSI explained to us that a person is "victimized" again every time someone looks at an image of them in child porn, and the hash of images is used so that they don't feel that pang in their stomach when an FBI investigator double-clicks 0FEDCABE1.jpg.
There have been interesting responses. Tools that find substantially-similar (read: the same image lossy encoded, resized, and rotated) images, produce hashes that can be compared to find out "How similar" two images are, and so on.
I ran the punnette squares for 3 generations with a colleague and we found that the incidence went up after 2 generations, then sharply declined. We were assuming that congenital disorders precluded breeding. Generation 3 was something like 9/36 survival, with 7/9 all clear; we started with two carriers, ended with two living carriers and 7 living non-carriers.
The mixing does shuffle the genetic immunity markers, though, which lets you build a better immune system profile out of the gate. Inbreeding stagnates that, so you can get sicker more easily because you're super-immune to like H1N1 flu and measles (your body reacts quicker to it and builds an immunity rapidly upon exposure) but highly susceptible to everything else.
I remember when Affirmative Action was getting a lot of attention. Cue 10 years later, black girl in my class, nice girl, gets like 1380 on the SAT (better than I did) and gets into a decent college. We had some folks in my class saying she got in "because she's black." A lot of folks in my class wanted to punt those kids for being dicks, but the fact is they were there and they said it. What happens when that guy is the hiring manager looking at your CV? "Went to harvard......oh she's black. And a woman. Haha no, this one's below the bar, obviously."
President Obama is being criticized by the IOC for selecting three gay athletes for the Olympics, and now gay judges for the Olympic committee. Rightly so: it's well-known he did this as a political move against Russia for their anti-gay discrimination. Now whenever gays get into anything or win anything, it'll be "oh they're just gay, they get everything." We're paving the way for rationalized invalidation in a big way--anything this group of people accomplishes will be considered favoritism, thus invalid.
The same can be said about the Nobel Peace Prize, which is a joke. Obama got it for killing fewer people one year than the previous year. Al Gore got it for a slide show about Global Warming, nudging out Irena Sendler. Who gets peace prizes? Politicians like Putin and scientists who are favored pets of politicians or who have published work that favors politicians' ideals.
This is why we can't have nice things. It even comes full-circle: Women get everything because they're women. Blacks get everything because they're black. Gays get everything because they're gay. And of course white males are the elite and so we just control every-damn-thing and discriminate against everyone else. You can't escape.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, you don't have a use for a quantum computer if you can't find a way to determine if it's a quantum computer. If it's just speed, what you want is a super-computer. If it's the ability to perform certain calculations, they simply don't work on a classical computer (or take eternity, even for a super-computer).
Phenylpiracetam actually carries a phenyl group. Methylphenedate and dexamphetamine also carry a phenyl group, which is where the primary effect of those comes from. Phenylpiracetam causes the same stimulant effects as amphetamine, mainly, as well as the same physical changes in relation to tolerance--that being a reduction in density of D2 dopamine receptors and a loss of dopamine sensitivity.
Phenylpiracetam has the phenyl stimulant mechanism of action and the racetam mechanism of action. Both.
Mark Shriner edited an interesting research compilation, although there's piles and piles of these. Assertions of toxicity aren't much covered, but there's some discussion about getting high off Methylphenedate and Dexamphetamine. The main concern is that the amount required for pharmacological effectiveness is fairly close to the amount that causes euphoria; comparisons to cocaine are made for a neurological reference, but not really for magnitude or toxicity's sake.
Dexamphetamine is better than Methylphenedate by far, which is why it's now much more prescribed. I mean really, there's a medical condition called "methylphenedate psychosis", and it's almost guaranteed if you're on MPH for more than a year. They had me on anti-psychotics because of MPH psychosis--this was routine and common. Adderall causes worse psychosis, but much less often.
I could always have a friend run a clinical trial. I mean hell, they let them get away with anything here. A couple dudes I knew in college had an ad up for clinical trials for... wait for it... spiritual meditation while under the influence of psylocybin. Sponsored and conducted by the university here (John's Hopkins). This goes on constantly--we've got kids in college genetically modifying HIV and injecting it into people with cancer to try and cure cancer (spoiler: it worked). It's everything from incredible medical breakthroughs to just probing around for more information about what happens when you get high. You can't deny that ADHD research is interesting, or that the similarity in known mechanisms of action doesn't make phenotropil a good candidate drug. This is a perfect medical research topic for a Ph.D..
Placebo effect is kind of bounded. You can't placebo away dissociation or an inability to focus, just like you can't placebo away cancer or alzheimers.
Yeah, but that comes with all kinds of shit... morphine is awesome, then you come off morphine and go "oh man this sucks". If I'm already in pain, I think I'll just live with it. Or kill myself. Nobody has ever given me a good story about having had morphine in the hospital. Ditto Xanax... had a coworker who said when he left his Xanax prescription behind it was ... a bad couple weeks.
The only real reason they give you opiate drugs for pain is because of the whole killing yourself thing. Yeah, pain can be that bad.
What's worse is we push profitable drugs. I put myself on phenotropil (a high dose--people recognize the stimulant effect at 100mg, but reading ADHD research and doing molecular composition and mass analysis I've figured out it should be about 20-25mg twice per day), and that's had miraculous effects on the ADHD--and the dissociation (which I've tended to use as a tool--but holy shit being a part of the real world is overwhelming), and even the sociopathy (emotional centers of my brain are hooking back up). Of course, Dextroamphetamine and Methylphenedate are more profitable... oddly enough, since they're also insanely generic. Adderall is multiple Dex salts and a 12.5% load of Levoamphetamine salt, which have widely varied half-lives so not really a good idea.
The worst part? Phenotropil's side effects include a headache from my brain starting to cannibilize itself for required acetylcholine--this is the same headache you get from studying too hard--so I'm also intaking a crazy amount of choline supplements (about 1200-1500mg/day)--and insomnia. Methylphenedate? Psychosis. Dex? Also psychosis, but less severe than Methylphenedate. They're both systemic toxins, as well as neurotoxins; phenotropil is well-tolerated and is neuroprotective. The dosage window is pretty narrow--high enough for a clinical effect, but not so high as to induce nasty side effects or toxicity, is hard with MPH and Amphetamine; Phenotropil it's just avoiding tolerance to the stimulant effect, which is why I said the dosage should be lower (I'm taking 100mg every day, but 25mg twice per day would be better; the same low-dose tactic is used to avoid Dextroamphetamine tolerance, which follows the same mechanism).
In short: the drugs as prescribed are horribly bad for you; the drugs that aren't prescribed have fewer side effects and are probably (not proven, but believed with rather high confidence) actually good for you. Phenotropil is neuroprotective: it prevents brain damage.
I take a B vitamin ... out of habit now, I guess. I was previously using SAM-e to maintain a hypomanic state, which requires B9 and B12 to prevent headaches and other side effects. Megavitamins are useless, and vitamin supplementation is only useful if you're deficient. Choline supplementation is probably the only universal one for that--250mg CDP Choline/day supplementation would be good for most people--but even that's not strictly necessary.
I'd rather join the Massed Minds.
Nintendo has shot for low-price high-value. I am consistently impressed with Nintendo, and unimpressed with Sony and Microsoft catering. Old Sega also was impressive--the DreamCast was fantastic, the games on it were iffy though; third-party vastly outperformed first-party, contrary to Nintendo's habit of releasing impossibly awesome first-party games like Zelda and Metroid.
Nintendo always had the best controllers. The dog bone on the SNES was slightly more ergonomic than Sega's croissant; the N64 mis-step wasn't so bad, and brought plenty of improvements over older designs; the Game Cube had the best handheld controller in history (Dual Shock is close, hence why Sony abandoned the banana); and then they just completely jumped to a new platform with the Wii. Wii U was a mis-step like N64: interesting concept, but... this time I think the multi-screen thing is "a nice idea that we can't make work". Meanwhile the competition has the Kinect: an upgraded EyeToy, not really a new platform; it gets a lot of talk but I don't know of anyone who really uses that as a primary controller for any reasonable amount of play (remember: the Wiimote is THE controller); I liken the Kinect to the Wii Balance Board in that respect, maybe even the WiiU game pad--intended to be primary, but let's face it... we all prefer the Wiimote and use it wherever possible.
Nintendo has put out some of the best games--they even started entire concepts like the MetroidVania style of gameplay present in Zelda and Metroid (and Castlevania, eventually). Microsoft has put out Halo--a session game, not a play-through game. Sony put out a platform, and occasionally Crash Bandicoot--the same bargain-bin shovelware as all the other no-name LJN shit. Nintendo platforms have hosted the greats--Capcom, Square, Enix, even Sega came to Nintendo after their downfall, although they make shit games now.
And what have they fallen to? XBox One? Don't kid yourself. Nintendo falls to... Android. To iOS. None of us saw this coming; we all saw the writing on the wall, commented about it in jest, but who really expected cell phones to break Nintendo? People don't want epics; they want time wasters, amazing graphical eye-candy or stupid little Angry Birds shit. Square-Enix isn't solidly fixed on Nintendo as they were ages ago; Capcom is still the top-of-the-line, but now people have lost interest--Capcom still does exactly what they did so long ago, but people have moved on just as they had from fighting games to RPGs to racing games to FPS. Once upon a time, the Playstation was shiny and exciting; but people lost interest by PS2... Final Fantasy and Gran Turisimo drove people to the PS2 (I hated racing games, but was in the RPG crowd). Now Nintendo faces the same, but all the shiny things are on cell phones.
Thus Nintendo does what it always has done: they do all they can, the best they can, and await results. They also cheat a little. Nintendo emerged from the smoking wreckage of the 1984 Video Game Crash with Rob the Robotic Operating Buddy, selling their game console as a "robotic toy" because KB Toys wouldn't stock a "Video Game". Now they're selling "Fitness Trainers". They've gone to digital distribution, but they'll have to open their distribution channel more so that more indie developers can get on it, and so rolling patches don't cost $3000 a pop. Indie games are crowd-pleasers: they're the last vestiges of the powerful and brilliant hand of the market, the one motivated by creativity and idealism and need rather than profit and security. People just put whatever they think would be awesome in indie games; they often fail--you don't hear about those--but once in a while you get a black swan like Hell Yeah or Braid.
If I were Nintendo, I would open the franchises. I'd create the new genre of NonCan, non-cannon third-party use of assets. Metroid SR388, Rockman X Infinity, Super Metroid Invincible Edition, etc. Stamp official permission on any damn thing with your own name on it, let people invent new game play elements for you, take a royalty if it's sold and pay one if you redistribute. That will draw some serious attention.
Infringement is a silly concept to begin with. If you randomly generate a pile of bits that's exactly like some other pile of bits, that's non-infringing. If you discover some magic way to randomly generate TV movies without starting with the movie itself, that's not infringing. If you seed it with a movie, or generate movies and distribute a seed to do it (i.e. hyper-compression), that's infringing. Why? Origination. Not result, origination.
Linking to something can be done with the earnest understanding that it doesn't really contribute. I found this with a google search. Everybody knows about this. Here's a download, there's a ridiculous amount of discussion here. _THIS_SITE_[link] hosts goobers of child pornography and is run by a child human trafficking ring in Nevada and I've been SCREAMING at the DOJ for a decade and they simply do not give a shit because they're being paid off. And so on.
If the intent is not to support infringement, but rather to convey information, that's different than linking to infringe. If infringement is critical mass--if you want it, you can have it in 5 minutes--and we're talking about something--say a leaked NDA--linking to it has value, and NOT linking to it does not preserve value.
It's some weird thing about bad outcomes versus bad intent.
They're talking about mixing human and animal tissue to capitalize on specific traits. This is engineered biological components--engineered humans. Not genetically engineered, but physically engineered, like engineered wood.
You can have your arm replaced with a majorly upgraded arm? Legs that can run so fucking fast...
It's a counter-statement against all the wild claims made in a popular sillhouette man comic, where it is asserted that publicly-provided post-secondary education (college) reduces income inequality--helps the poor.
College education is a speculative market. In the past 20 years, the US has had many high-profile bubbles where this speculation has destroyed students. For example: the dot-com boom made for a huge demand for Web programmers and designers; there was a nursing shortage in the US which caused a huge level of enrollment into nursing school; accounting was in major demand; and so on.
In each case, certain careers were high-dollar. Web designers, programmers, nurses, accountants, all $100k-$250k salaries. Then in 4-6 short years, all these people flood out and saturate the market; most of them can't get jobs, and the ones that can are making $40k (tech workers are still making $60k, but nurses make Wal-Mart salary). External events have caused problems too, like the dotcom crash or Arthur Anderson fiasco. They've also caused great opportunity not capitalized on: Exxon Valdez resulted in major labor shortages.
In a market with government-provided higher education or, as in the US, with government-secured loans, everyone suffers the cost of education: the burden weakens the economy, slowing growth and destroying some wealth. It also creates wealth, because of the wealth created by education. With government-secured loans, the "everyone" factor is that you can only get an education by taking your own risk; with government-provided higher education, the "everyone" factor is that you pay taxes for it.
So that frames the question: is the wealth created greater than the economic cost (the wealth destroyed)? Let's first accept an important and true piece of information: it is unsustainable for people to pay for their own education. Now let's examine the failure modes.
If the government does not support higher education, only rich kids can get a college education. They get infinite tries. They're also rare, and businesses must pay for them... $200k, $300k, $500k salaries. Worse yet, the lack of skilled labor hinders business strategic goals: businesses must bait labor off other businesses with ever-increasing salaries, and may lose said labor in the same way. So only hiring rich kids is unsustainable: it costs too fucking much and it prevents the business from actually doing what it needs to do, causing them to lag behind their competitors. This is toxic as hell to small business.
In the above scenario, it's cheaper for the business to simply employ entrant workers at a low salary, plus generous education benefit. Miyomoto Musashi wrote in his Book of Five Rings that a foreman must be all of a carpenter before he can be a foreman; he wrote as well that a foreman knows that a skilled carpenter can carve furniture, while the unskilled plane floors, or the even less skilled lay joists, or at least cut wedges. Each of these things takes time, and a skilled carpenter taking 20 minutes to cut wedges is wasting a lot of time of extreme value; thus adding an unskilled worker can add as much value as adding a skilled worker.
Knowing this, we can realize that strategically expanding your labor with lower-skilled workers and developing them into higher-skilled workers comes at the cost of education. It does not come at the cost of supporting a lower-skilled worker who produces minimal output, because the lower-skilled tasks required are still relevant as demand for higher-skilled workers--which you have in abundance--increases. Thus when you move 40 hours of low-skilled work off a high-skilled worker to an entrant, you are gaining the same benefit as hiring n a new high-skilled worker. The cost comes in education, which is offset by the lower wage of a low-skilled worker as compared to a high-skilled worker.
This means that a business takes exceedingly small risk to hire and train skilled employees as needed. Skilled employees may start a
That is true, but that's not illegal. Poorly thought out, but not illegal.
Posting the street address of a victim of assault and/or rape who was on the sex offender registry for touching a 14 year old girl might be illegal. Not because he was on the sex offender registry, no. It might be illegal when somebody shows that a reasonable person would know your article would draw more violence and assault and anti-social behavior, and that you willfully put that person in danger instead of just being negligent and stupid. There will be HELL to pay if the tone of your argument falls under the legal doctrine of "Fighting Words" and people believe you were actively TRYING to cause trouble for the person.
My issue with embryonic stem cell research is it's an incredibly bad hack. Essentially you need to jump through all kinds of loopy hoops to make it work, then it tends to run amock (tumors), and even if it did work you have the same rejection issues as organ transplants (fixable by using your own DNA to seed an embryo as a start).
Research into embryonic stem cells has never showed "promise"; it has always been an idealistic on-paper pursuit. There's lots of promise in the Alcubierre warp drive in the same way (all implications). Meanwhile adult stem cell research has consistently produced results, and over time these results have come at an accelerated rate; there is often research into making adult stem cells more multipotent, and in this case pluripotent, which--given the relative ease with which we can apply them to new treatments--just opens the floodgates and allows even more rapid advancement.
To me, embryonic stem cell research at large is a waste of time. It's an academic pursuit, and should be pursued as such; but real research dollars diverted towards real-world applicable medical research should go directly to adult stem cell research. When we research real-world space travel--how are we going to get the next batch of satellites into space?--we research new rocket engines; when we research negative energy and faster-than-light drives, we acknowledge that we're just trying to get the new building blocks to, someday, build new things that we can't possibly do today.
When the decision is made on how much money to send to "fringe research" and how much to send to "applicable research", I don't want to see brainless monkeys sending precious medical research dollars intended to generate miracle cures TOMORROW toward fringe embryonic stem cell research that won't generate anything useful for DECADES. Send your fringe research budget money that way.
Of course, if you hype up embryonic stem cell research enough, that will be where the investors run, where the grants go, and where public opinion (which boosts stock prices) falls. That means you can make a lot of money by luring investors onto your medical venture that's going nowhere, getting grant money for your medical venture that's going nowhere, then taking your company public and holding stock in your medical venture that's going nowhere until it's starting to peak over. That doesn't happen for fringe research; fringe research gets a justifiably smaller budget because it's important next decade, while real research gets a bigger budget because it's important yesterday.
No, the problem is most people know they've been told "embryonic stem cells will cure every disease" or "you can make anything out of embryonic stem cells." Most people just know "stem cells" and are unaware that there's a difference; the word "embryonic" is just attached. Whenever non-embryonic stem cells are brought in, the only purpose of attaching "embryonic" is to groom your audience to follow your political opinions.
Then you get the year 2000, with everyone arguing over stem cell bans that don't exist (Clinton banned embryonic stem cell research; Bush lifted the ban, with large restrictions). Big political issue, nobody understands the difference, they don't understand the medical position, the legislative position, or even that they're discussing a subset of a type of research--embryonic stem cell research is research into manipulating stem cells, just as adult stem cell research, but using a different starting point; this makes the issue much smaller than people ever believed.
Then you get a voter base with incomplete knowledge. Then they may select the worst candidate because they believe all the minimally important issues are incredibly important, while all the maximally-important issues are dismissed or simply unknown.
What a loaded phrase. These are pluripotent adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cell treatments have never panned out; yet we have hundreds of adult stem cell treatments. This is extending the adult stem cell treatment into what people--political people--have theorized embryonic stem cells could be used for, but which has never actually worked out well.
The term "embryonic" is often crammed into positive stem cell research in any way possible so that people can have a stronger pro-stem-cell argument base to argue for embryonic stem cell research. The term "adult" is often dropped when that's not possible, so we can just say "stem cells". You'll see research that allows us to create cells "like embryonic stem cells" or make cells "behave like embryonic stem cells" to achieve things we've never honestly achieved from embryonic stem cells not because of lack of research, but because they just don't fucking behave--ESS aren't just pluripotent, but they're essentially seeds that are pre-programmed (metaphor) to grow into whole bodies... or tumors.
If you want to regrow tissue, adult stem cells are the way to go. If you want to regrow a variety of tissue, pluripotent adult stem cells are the way to go (or as close to it as you can get). If you want to regrow organs... that's going to be tough; you need not just pluripotency, but you need to induce the mechanisms executed after embryonic stem cells start to differentiate, but before they become simply pluripotent--you need to not grow a whole body, but grow an arm or a kidney rather than just a sheet of tissue. That's an intermediate state that's going to be hard to trigger from either end.
My first thought entirely. Of all the education debates, providing education does have a serious cultural impact: it empowers people. Universal higher education is severely detrimental--especially to the lower class--but it still empowers people: it gives them discrete skills and critical thinking skills, and makes them interact with the world around them.
When an educated person fails, he decides the system around him is broken. This is a natural consequence of education: you have all these skills, you feel you can apply yourself, and yet you are not being allowed to do so. No faceless evil across the other end of the earth is doing this to you. When you are uneducated and starving, you feel there is nothing you can do; all explanations are readily accepted, especially if we blame someone else.
Education is the enemy of government. Strong education makes government subordinate; weak education makes government powerful. Since there are more citizens than government, it is strictly optimal for government to be subordinate to the needs of the people.
The problem is The Pirate Bay exists to facilitate illegal activity. Some jackass linking to some leaked thing on his Web site isn't providing a repository for illegal things; he's providing commentary and repeating information. It's the difference between coaching people to rape girls versus complaining to your buddies that these college girls keep ducking down dark alleys on campus thinking it's safe when it's not and dey gunna get raeped: both of these put people at risk of rape, but nobody is going to throw beer bottles at you for the second.
I guarantee you that it was published when they cited it. Maybe not by the original author, but Gawker didn't get it under NDA.
I've done cooking that relies on high temperature cookware on range top. Yes a lot of heat convects around; that doesn't mean the cookware isn't getting hotter. Also if you look at cooking with a wok, you'll find electric never works.
Tubes are often used because if one cracks or a seal fails you buy a new one for $20. If a $500 flatbed cracks,you buy a new $500 flatbed.
You're right, really. Stallman's "free" is "You are not free to do with what you create as you wish; you must allow others to do with what you create as they wish, which precludes things such as retaining a secret or selling a product." He has stated outright that he wants a software environment with so much GPL that it's impossible to avoid it, so all software must be GPL.
Wrong. OSI explained to us that a person is "victimized" again every time someone looks at an image of them in child porn, and the hash of images is used so that they don't feel that pang in their stomach when an FBI investigator double-clicks 0FEDCABE1.jpg.
There have been interesting responses. Tools that find substantially-similar (read: the same image lossy encoded, resized, and rotated) images, produce hashes that can be compared to find out "How similar" two images are, and so on.
As in Go, there appears to be a balance here. This is probably why it's legal to marry your cousin, but not your mom.
I ran the punnette squares for 3 generations with a colleague and we found that the incidence went up after 2 generations, then sharply declined. We were assuming that congenital disorders precluded breeding. Generation 3 was something like 9/36 survival, with 7/9 all clear; we started with two carriers, ended with two living carriers and 7 living non-carriers.
The mixing does shuffle the genetic immunity markers, though, which lets you build a better immune system profile out of the gate. Inbreeding stagnates that, so you can get sicker more easily because you're super-immune to like H1N1 flu and measles (your body reacts quicker to it and builds an immunity rapidly upon exposure) but highly susceptible to everything else.
I remember when Affirmative Action was getting a lot of attention. Cue 10 years later, black girl in my class, nice girl, gets like 1380 on the SAT (better than I did) and gets into a decent college. We had some folks in my class saying she got in "because she's black." A lot of folks in my class wanted to punt those kids for being dicks, but the fact is they were there and they said it. What happens when that guy is the hiring manager looking at your CV? "Went to harvard... ...oh she's black. And a woman. Haha no, this one's below the bar, obviously."
President Obama is being criticized by the IOC for selecting three gay athletes for the Olympics, and now gay judges for the Olympic committee. Rightly so: it's well-known he did this as a political move against Russia for their anti-gay discrimination. Now whenever gays get into anything or win anything, it'll be "oh they're just gay, they get everything." We're paving the way for rationalized invalidation in a big way--anything this group of people accomplishes will be considered favoritism, thus invalid.
The same can be said about the Nobel Peace Prize, which is a joke. Obama got it for killing fewer people one year than the previous year. Al Gore got it for a slide show about Global Warming, nudging out Irena Sendler. Who gets peace prizes? Politicians like Putin and scientists who are favored pets of politicians or who have published work that favors politicians' ideals.
This is why we can't have nice things. It even comes full-circle: Women get everything because they're women. Blacks get everything because they're black. Gays get everything because they're gay. And of course white males are the elite and so we just control every-damn-thing and discriminate against everyone else. You can't escape.