Exactly. It is a lot better to "teach a man to fish" than to simply give him a fish. I know I slipped into cliché but it's the same principle. Just like you said, you can usually do a lot more good by starting a foundation than just giving all the money away.
Ah, but are they as "normal" as other people, especially when you correct for demographics? How do you define normal? Where's the research showing they are or are not just as normal as other people? Anecdotes do not make good scientific evidence when you are trying to generalize to an entire population.
Don't confuse stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research. There are a lot of people who support stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cell research.
I just purchased a Phenom X4 2.8GHz + ASUS mobo (not high end but with good features - core unlocking, easy overclocking, Crossfire support, USB 3 - and it is usually $100 on Newegg) for $160. If you time deals right, you can get the higher end stuff for the same price as the lower end stuff (not that there's too much of a difference for most people between Athlons and Phenoms).
Are you just as outraged that the "Ground Zero" mosque builders are seeking federal grant money to pay for their site? Or how about Pell Grant money being used to fund the educations of people at private religious colleges? What about grant money going to researchers at religious schools? What about religious charter schools? Maybe I should get upset when governments take my money to proselytize the religion of environmentalism (I'm a conservationist who is a large proponent of green and other renewable energy sources but I think we need to be skeptical of environmental fanaticism)? Maybe we should remove Moses and the 10 Commandments from the Supreme Court building.
This project at least has the possibility of turning a profit (tourism dollars) unlike much of what the government pours money into.
I know this is a semantic issue but jailbreaking usually refers to installing apps on phones and not usually unlocking a phone from a particular carrier. Anyway, carry on with the discussion.
Yes, and almost all of them were killed by their own people. Some things don't change. Before they had Saddam Hussein and his government killing people, now it's extremist groups. That leak actually provided more rationale for the U.S. remaining in Iraq (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying that the consequences of these leaks is far more complex than people think). It's the same thing with this cables leak - it gives more justification for overthrowing Iran's government (that's something many of the Arab nations want the U.S. to do) as well as North Korea's (that's something that China wouldn't stop; they might just even encourage it). Further, most of the leaked cables are far more condemning of other countries than they are of the U.S. Lastly, there will likely be more secrecy now with fewer paper trails.
Governments need some secret dealings (not as much as we have) but one of the problems with Wikileaks is that we cannot predict the consequences. Sure, some consequences will be positive but some will be negative. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? We won't know for many years.
Actually "Obamacare" (although that's a misnomer because Congress passed it so it is their responsibility even if it was spurred by Pres. Obama) isn't what Romney proposed in MA. It's similar to what got passed but what got passed was quite a bit different from what Romney proposed. The MA legislature made significant changes to it before they passed it. Sure, Romney signed it into law and mostly praised it but what else do you do when you have to work with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature?
Mitt Romney is center right but that's an aside. I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin but I think she'd be the kind of president who would surround herself with good advisors and probably be okay as a President. I still think there are a lot of other better choices.
No, not all of them say that. Just the establishment Republicans, who are not "small government" Republicans. Unfortunately we don't have many small government people in office and haven't for a number of years.
Appealing to Wikipedia doesn't count as authoritative (especially since the current page was written after the controversy erupted); at least link to the primary sources. In any case, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, I'm opposed to waterboarding but you don't have to be ignorant to believe that it is not torture. That's part of what the controversy is about - whether or not it is torture.
Yes, waterboarding is inhumane but it is not torture (although some people are defining it as torture in the wake of the waterboarding). FYI, I am very much opposed to waterboarding but let's not beg the question by calling it torture when that is what is still under discussion.
Further, it doesn't help to criticize someone for "attack[ing his] enemies" just after you did just that. In fact, your whole comment is ironic (you attack and then criticize the parent for attacking); hopefully it was done on purpose.
Just a question? Is it not the responsibility of Congressmen to represent their constituents? I'm not stating anything about the validity of what they are saying, I'm just pointing out that one reason Congressmen (and women) are elected is to represent their state. So in this case, these Congressmen are doing their jobs. Again, I didn't state anything about lobbying or science; I was making a purely political point.
And that's why the example dnaumov posted about leaving your house door unlocked is wrong. This is like you said. It's like this example: the door was unlocked but this man asked if he could enter and someone with power of attorney for the owner said "Yes." Then he asked, "Hey, can I let other people in too?" The response again was, "Yes." You hit the nail on the head, the client does ask for permission. If the owner wants things private, they need to make sure the response to entering is "No". That's their problem to solve.
I should add that 7T MR scanners are not available commercially. This means you have to have a research agreement with the manufacturer to have one (you essentially test it out for them).
You're welcome. You are correct, there are a few 7T human scanners being used for research now. I hadn't checked on 7T scanners for a couple years so I guess things have changed! I'd love to get my hands on a 7T scanner.:)
Yes, we use a 3T. Theoretically 7Ts would be better (there aren't any 7T scanners for people that I know of) but there are some issues that engineers are still working through (signal, noise, safety, etc.).
To reliably resolve individual axons, we'd have to have a resolution of under 5 m (as I said earlier, we typically resolve 2000 m in vivo). That's a huge volume difference (125 cubic m vs. 8,000,000,000 cubic m)! We "take pictures" of the brain using voxels (volumetric pixels), so the 3D resolution is important (although, you could work on having a high in plane resolution and not worry so much about the depth - e.g., 5 m X 5 m X 50 m).
Yeah, we'd love to do individual fibers but it will be a lot of years before that happens, at least with MRI technology.
Further, all neurons have a resting firing rate. They might only fire once per second or so but they are never "still". Most of the neurons in our brain serve as inhibitory regulators for other neurons. If this wasn't the case, we'd have too much activity.
I do this exact research (diffusion weighted imaging of human brains). We are no where near neuronal/axonal resolution with diffusion weighted scanning (DTI is a special case of diffusion weighted scanning - there are better methods than DTI for analyzing images: e.g., http://brainybehavior.com/neuroimaging/2010/08/hardi_vs_dti/).
With live humans we only resolve down to about 2mm^3. There are many neurons and axons in that space. At best for the whole brain we create only a few fibers for that 2x2x2 mm area when in reality there are tens of thousands to millions of fibers. If we limit our field of view, we can scan at around 500 microns but that is really pushing the limit. With whole removed brains, researchers potentially could scan at 250 microns resolution but 500 microns is more likely. We can do little pieces of brain in ultra high field strength machines at greater resolution (maybe 150 microns).
I think that some day we will get there but we're not particularly close to resolving individual neurons with diffusion weighted imaging.
That's not a very good sample: 6 presidents (if you don't count Carter). We need a much bigger sample size. The problem is that parties shift. The Democrats of today are nothing like the Democrats of 60 years ago and the Republicans of today are nothing like the Republicans of 60 years ago. There are similarities but both parties have changed (arguably for the worse). In any case, picking the past 30 years is cherry picking data. Further, Congress is in charge of spending. I know that Presidents have a large sway over it but the President cannot pass a spending bill. If you want to give blame or credit for debt levels, more of it should go to Congress. If you look at the numbers that way, you get a different picture. Further, you have to look at if Presidents were of the same party as the majority party in Congress and how large that majority was. You also have to take into account the overall economy during administrations and Congresses. There was a sizable recession during the 80s (and 70s), which by itself can result in an increase in national debt in part because of decreased revenue.
My point is that it is way too simplistic (and technically wrong) to assign credit or blame to Presidents for debt levels. I know Presidents usually propose the budgets but Congress has complete control over them. The President is the easy target because he is only one person but we should really blame Congress, if for nothing more than not standing up to the President when they really should.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. It is a lot better to "teach a man to fish" than to simply give him a fish. I know I slipped into cliché but it's the same principle. Just like you said, you can usually do a lot more good by starting a foundation than just giving all the money away.
Ah, but are they as "normal" as other people, especially when you correct for demographics? How do you define normal? Where's the research showing they are or are not just as normal as other people? Anecdotes do not make good scientific evidence when you are trying to generalize to an entire population.
Don't confuse stem cell research with embryonic stem cell research. There are a lot of people who support stem cell research, just not embryonic stem cell research.
I just purchased a Phenom X4 2.8GHz + ASUS mobo (not high end but with good features - core unlocking, easy overclocking, Crossfire support, USB 3 - and it is usually $100 on Newegg) for $160. If you time deals right, you can get the higher end stuff for the same price as the lower end stuff (not that there's too much of a difference for most people between Athlons and Phenoms).
Are you just as outraged that the "Ground Zero" mosque builders are seeking federal grant money to pay for their site? Or how about Pell Grant money being used to fund the educations of people at private religious colleges? What about grant money going to researchers at religious schools? What about religious charter schools? Maybe I should get upset when governments take my money to proselytize the religion of environmentalism (I'm a conservationist who is a large proponent of green and other renewable energy sources but I think we need to be skeptical of environmental fanaticism)? Maybe we should remove Moses and the 10 Commandments from the Supreme Court building.
This project at least has the possibility of turning a profit (tourism dollars) unlike much of what the government pours money into.
I know this is a semantic issue but jailbreaking usually refers to installing apps on phones and not usually unlocking a phone from a particular carrier. Anyway, carry on with the discussion.
"Not one single Iraqi ever physically harmed an American outside of their sovereign border." I'd like to see your proof for that universal and categorical negative. Further, almost all of the Iraqis killed were killed by other Iraqis and not NATO troops (there isn't a great source for that statement but here are two: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War; http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). As for how many Iraqis Saddam Hussein killed? Estimates rage from the high 100 thousands to the millions: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/magazine/07MAKIYA-t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=310195565a77e9ff&ex=1349409600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss.
You may or may not agree with the war in Iraq (I certainly don't) but what is occurring cannot compare to what occurred before.
Yes, and almost all of them were killed by their own people. Some things don't change. Before they had Saddam Hussein and his government killing people, now it's extremist groups. That leak actually provided more rationale for the U.S. remaining in Iraq (I'm not saying we should, I'm just saying that the consequences of these leaks is far more complex than people think). It's the same thing with this cables leak - it gives more justification for overthrowing Iran's government (that's something many of the Arab nations want the U.S. to do) as well as North Korea's (that's something that China wouldn't stop; they might just even encourage it). Further, most of the leaked cables are far more condemning of other countries than they are of the U.S. Lastly, there will likely be more secrecy now with fewer paper trails.
Governments need some secret dealings (not as much as we have) but one of the problems with Wikileaks is that we cannot predict the consequences. Sure, some consequences will be positive but some will be negative. Do the positives outweigh the negatives? We won't know for many years.
Sure we can, they're all on here! ;)
Actually "Obamacare" (although that's a misnomer because Congress passed it so it is their responsibility even if it was spurred by Pres. Obama) isn't what Romney proposed in MA. It's similar to what got passed but what got passed was quite a bit different from what Romney proposed. The MA legislature made significant changes to it before they passed it. Sure, Romney signed it into law and mostly praised it but what else do you do when you have to work with an overwhelmingly Democrat legislature?
Mitt Romney is center right but that's an aside. I wouldn't vote for Sarah Palin but I think she'd be the kind of president who would surround herself with good advisors and probably be okay as a President. I still think there are a lot of other better choices.
No, not all of them say that. Just the establishment Republicans, who are not "small government" Republicans. Unfortunately we don't have many small government people in office and haven't for a number of years.
Appealing to Wikipedia doesn't count as authoritative (especially since the current page was written after the controversy erupted); at least link to the primary sources. In any case, hindsight is 20/20. Yes, I'm opposed to waterboarding but you don't have to be ignorant to believe that it is not torture. That's part of what the controversy is about - whether or not it is torture.
Yes, waterboarding is inhumane but it is not torture (although some people are defining it as torture in the wake of the waterboarding). FYI, I am very much opposed to waterboarding but let's not beg the question by calling it torture when that is what is still under discussion.
"Successfully" is a manner of opinion.
Further, it doesn't help to criticize someone for "attack[ing his] enemies" just after you did just that. In fact, your whole comment is ironic (you attack and then criticize the parent for attacking); hopefully it was done on purpose.
Not when you have 32 or 64 GB of storage.
The newest iPod Touch has a gyro too.
From Apple: http://www.apple.com/ipodtouch/specs.html
Sensors
Three-axis gyro
Accelerometer
Ambient light sensor
Just a question? Is it not the responsibility of Congressmen to represent their constituents? I'm not stating anything about the validity of what they are saying, I'm just pointing out that one reason Congressmen (and women) are elected is to represent their state. So in this case, these Congressmen are doing their jobs. Again, I didn't state anything about lobbying or science; I was making a purely political point.
And that's why the example dnaumov posted about leaving your house door unlocked is wrong. This is like you said. It's like this example: the door was unlocked but this man asked if he could enter and someone with power of attorney for the owner said "Yes." Then he asked, "Hey, can I let other people in too?" The response again was, "Yes." You hit the nail on the head, the client does ask for permission. If the owner wants things private, they need to make sure the response to entering is "No". That's their problem to solve.
I should add that 7T MR scanners are not available commercially. This means you have to have a research agreement with the manufacturer to have one (you essentially test it out for them).
You're welcome. You are correct, there are a few 7T human scanners being used for research now. I hadn't checked on 7T scanners for a couple years so I guess things have changed! I'd love to get my hands on a 7T scanner. :)
Yes, we use a 3T. Theoretically 7Ts would be better (there aren't any 7T scanners for people that I know of) but there are some issues that engineers are still working through (signal, noise, safety, etc.).
To reliably resolve individual axons, we'd have to have a resolution of under 5 m (as I said earlier, we typically resolve 2000 m in vivo). That's a huge volume difference (125 cubic m vs. 8,000,000,000 cubic m)! We "take pictures" of the brain using voxels (volumetric pixels), so the 3D resolution is important (although, you could work on having a high in plane resolution and not worry so much about the depth - e.g., 5 m X 5 m X 50 m).
Yeah, we'd love to do individual fibers but it will be a lot of years before that happens, at least with MRI technology.
Further, all neurons have a resting firing rate. They might only fire once per second or so but they are never "still". Most of the neurons in our brain serve as inhibitory regulators for other neurons. If this wasn't the case, we'd have too much activity.
I do this exact research (diffusion weighted imaging of human brains). We are no where near neuronal/axonal resolution with diffusion weighted scanning (DTI is a special case of diffusion weighted scanning - there are better methods than DTI for analyzing images: e.g., http://brainybehavior.com/neuroimaging/2010/08/hardi_vs_dti/).
With live humans we only resolve down to about 2mm^3. There are many neurons and axons in that space. At best for the whole brain we create only a few fibers for that 2x2x2 mm area when in reality there are tens of thousands to millions of fibers. If we limit our field of view, we can scan at around 500 microns but that is really pushing the limit. With whole removed brains, researchers potentially could scan at 250 microns resolution but 500 microns is more likely. We can do little pieces of brain in ultra high field strength machines at greater resolution (maybe 150 microns).
I think that some day we will get there but we're not particularly close to resolving individual neurons with diffusion weighted imaging.
That's not a very good sample: 6 presidents (if you don't count Carter). We need a much bigger sample size. The problem is that parties shift. The Democrats of today are nothing like the Democrats of 60 years ago and the Republicans of today are nothing like the Republicans of 60 years ago. There are similarities but both parties have changed (arguably for the worse). In any case, picking the past 30 years is cherry picking data. Further, Congress is in charge of spending. I know that Presidents have a large sway over it but the President cannot pass a spending bill. If you want to give blame or credit for debt levels, more of it should go to Congress. If you look at the numbers that way, you get a different picture. Further, you have to look at if Presidents were of the same party as the majority party in Congress and how large that majority was. You also have to take into account the overall economy during administrations and Congresses. There was a sizable recession during the 80s (and 70s), which by itself can result in an increase in national debt in part because of decreased revenue.
My point is that it is way too simplistic (and technically wrong) to assign credit or blame to Presidents for debt levels. I know Presidents usually propose the budgets but Congress has complete control over them. The President is the easy target because he is only one person but we should really blame Congress, if for nothing more than not standing up to the President when they really should.