Well if they can "immortalize" liver cells, then why can't they immortalized *all* of my cells?
We could, but you almost certainly wouldn't like the results. (Well, we most likely could do so theoretically; the ethics board would kill us if we tried.)
Death of cells via apoptosis, phagocytosis and sometimes even necrosis is a very important part of normal processes in your body. WIthout them you'd be a continuously expanding ball of flesh (assuming you even made it to a stage of embryogenesis that could be called a "ball of flesh")
Hm, immortal. How is that different from cancerous?
Cell immortality is orthogonal to the abnormal replication present in cancerous cells. There are lots of cells in your body which are effectively immortal but do not undergo abnormal replication, and are therefore not cancerous. [Obvious examples are your spermatogonia and progenitor cells in your bone marrow.]
As far as immune cells go, so long as you've avoided including proliferative immune cells, you should be free from graft vs host issues. Growing the hepatocytes from cell lines that have been sorted pretty much guarantees this.
Dealer stickers used to show up in CA too, but the number of people
who force dealers to take them off has pretty much made them stop
doing it by default. License plate rings are easier to put on and take
off, anyway.
Debian does not autosubscribe the reporter to the bug. I
don't know who made that design choice originally, but it really makes
the system a pain in the ass to use. I usually just bypass debian's
system altogether unless it's a packaging bug because of this
issue.
The reason why they're not automatically susbcribed is because not
everyone wants to know about the process of resolving their bug; they
just want to know when it gets fixed. That said, adding the ability to
subscribe at submit@ time is on
the todo list.
Actually, I've seen people getting kicked out of dorms for not being PC with a comment. Once you say something that the PC-police thinks is insensitive of gender and/or race, they can overreact. The guy I saw getting kicked out of his dorm made some comment to a girl (he didn't touch her or said anything threatening, but it was in poor taste) and then got kicked out for sexual harassment and threatened to get kicked out of school unless he went to special sensitivity classes.
Residential Halls are where people live; harassing people in them is never appropriate, and sanctions almost always follow such harassment. Since the nature of sanctions is always a private matter between the judicial committee and the offender, you couldn't possibly have seen a "guy [..] getting kicked out."
Yes and no. You understand the number of people who don't
get it, but it still doesn't solve the problem of helping the 10% or
so who aren't going to get it without a little face time...
Sure, but that's a slightly different problem. It does tell you if
no one has gotten it, or if enough people have gotten it to continue
on.
Something you can't give in a huge class.
It's actually surprising to me the number of students who have
problems in lecture and fail to make use of the professor's and/or
TA's office hours where large amounts of time are available to address
these very issues. So while it's not possible to give in the huge
class, almost any professor that I've ever interacted with is willing
to spend time in their office hours (and often outside of office hours
if necessary) to help students grasp the material.
I can't see any benefit for a class of 30; you can usually
get a little extra time there just by asking a question. That 10% is
just a handful of questions there.
Right, for small classes, it's kind of unecessary, because you can
ask questions directly of students and often gauge their understanding
by their physical expressions.
In the end, it's just another tool in the arsenal. Used properly,
it's very helpful; used improperly, it's a waste of time.
After I graduated I heard that they'd put in this system where you had to "rent" this fricking remote control, register it (unique serial number, so they could track you attendance) and use it to input multiple choice answers to questions the prof put on the board. I can only imagine the benefits felt by the students
Used properly, these things can actually be fairly useful, as they allow a lecturer to get immediate feedback as to whether students have grasped the material being covered in the lecture. They also tell students whether they've grasped the material as well, and also tends to get students to engage more with the material.
Here at UCR, we sell them, and you register them, though only certain classes (usually ones with > 30 students) use them.
Player pianos only signal note on and note off with the paper.
Higher-end player pianos (Ampico, Aeolian, Welte, etc.) control the amplitude at which notes are struck, though no where near as accurately as MIDI (which controls velocity and can even modify the velocity after touch). That's why they have more than 89 holes in the tracker bar.
That said, all of QRS's rolls that I'm aware of are 88 note, though they often have instructions for how to modify the amplitude printed on the roll, along with lyrics in some cases.
From my understanding, this would have nearly nill genetic variability. So your pretty much bringing back a species that can't have offspring, seems a bit slack to me.
Genetic variability is important for withstanding change in the environment, but it is not necessary for producing offspring or survival in a controlled environment.
Since such animals would (presumably) be found in very controlled environments, you could easily produce offspring. (This sort of thing is done all the time for mice lines in laboratory environments.)
it would need to be a Minimum Viable Population (MVP) size
To survive in the wild, yes. However, to survive in a controlled environment, it's quite possible to have 2 individuals (which can be clones of eachother). This is demonstrated time and time again with mouse lines.
I would assume anyway, that such a procedure would involve first producing a few heterozygous females (clones would be ok) and then manipulating two eggs to degrade the X chromosome of one, introduce a single Y chromosome, and fusing them, then start the cortical reaction, creating a male embryo. [I'm assuming sex determination in wooly mamoths is the same as in Homo Sapiens; I've never studied them.]
Project A is fine until someone has to get beyond your
little layer, in which case it's.xinitrc hell.
What in the world does the X11 rendering engine have to do with
"useable for normal people" or the "xinitrc"?
X11, and by extension, the X server, is a layer whose job is to put
stuff on screen. That means dealing with the wibbly bits (mice,
keyboards, displays, video cards, tablets, pedals, etc.) that cause
the stuff on screen to be displayed or interact with the stuff on
screen.
But for twenty years now, there have been exactly two
kinds of X development:
Furthermore, it's not like people haven't been modifying how the
bits in between your "Project A" and "Project B" work, either. See
xrandr 1.2 and 1.3, for example, as well as the countless other
projects working on this very part of X11.
That's not to say there aren't problems with X11 and the various
implementations of the X server, but it'd help to at least have
studied what's actually going on before attacking the work of those
who are actually doing the work.
If you want to lock your luggage, the way to do it is to purchase
yourself a starter pistol. By all (or at least most?) state's gun
control laws, a starter pistol doesn't require registration, but TSA
requires it to be locked in a hard case in the presence of the
luggage's owner, and they don't use the stupid "special key openable
locks."
Otherwise, don't bother to put anything in your luggage that you
don't want to disappear.
By integrity, I mean that the iPhone as a small OS would
not be a junk anything-goes resource manager, but a stable runtime
environment for which people can develop stable
applications.
A platform whose stability is dependent on the restriction of
development to specific code is insanely fragile. It should not be
possible for developers to destabilize the platform using the
published APIs, as the underlying OS should properly manage its APIs
and resources. Furthermore, it's not like code audits are performed on
the applications that are in the app store, so these arguments are
rather specious.
Smog contains ozone, but it is much, much more than just ozone. Nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, peroxyacyl nitrates and various aldehydes are also components of smog.
Take a look at the weekend effect - basically, when truck traffic goes down, smog goes up. IIRC, diesels emit more NO2 than NO, and (again, IIRC) NO2 reacts such that it reduces smog in a VOC rich environment. (If it's not NO2, it's NO, and I got it backwards.)
This leads to a reduction in ozone levels, not particulate levels. [Anyone who actually lives in the areas of the LA basin where smog is a problem can tell you whether its monday morning and friday morning simply by looking at the sky.]
It ought to be hard to get a wrong certificate. Issuing
the wrong cert should have enough consequences for the CA they should
be very careful that they never do.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be hard to get a wrong cert, or
that CAs shouldn't have consequences of issuing wrong ones. My
argument is that it's currently not hard to get a falsely issued
certificate issued by a CA. All you have to do is be in a position to
intercept mail sent from the CA to verify identity. Simple DNS
poisoning of whatever dns servers the CA's mailservers are using would
be sufficient to do this.
Furthermore, it's not like you can't get a chained signing key like
godady et. al. use if you have enough money to do so. (Or possibly
cheaper, get a wildcard certificate.)
This is the basis for trust on the internet and it has to be made to work.
It may be the basis, but it's a fairly easy to exploit basis. Once someone has obtained such certificates, and decided to MITM someone else, the irresponsibility still has to be discovered, and the attack vector discerned. How many people who use the internet on a daily basis for banking even understand how certification works and know how to detect that they've been the victim of a MITM attack? How many of those would know how to track down the CA of the MITM to determine who signed it originally?
Furthermore, how often do people update their browser's CA and signature revocation database?
The only possible alternative is to do what SSH does:
exchange keys on the first connection, and just assume that you're
probably on a trusted network the first time you log in. Then you get
a security warning if the server's public key changes. Most of the
time this is good enough, but when it comes to online banking, I'd
rather be sure.
The right way to handle this sort of thing is to have a real web of
trust of people, and then do caching of the fingerprints of the keys.
The first part breaks the CA trusted-party monopoly, and the second
avoids non-initial untrusted-cert MITM attacks.
For me at least, the ordering of methods of information
transmission that I trust is fairly simple
Keys which I've personally (and physically) verified
Keys which others have verified and I have a trust path with
Keys from CAs which have money on the line guaranteeing their verification
Self-Signed certs
Expired certs
Unencrypted connections
That sending information to slashdot requires a single click, and
sending information to my own https servers requires five seems rather
silly; I should definetly be warned, but there's no reason to require
me to click to pull up a dialog, click to get the certificate, click
to accept, then click to dismiss the dialog. A single message with the
certificate information as a warning with a display of what this all
means and why it may be problematic is good enough.
What is worng with you Perl programmers? Does the thought of a newline or indentation, possibly even whitespace fill you with fear and horror?
It's a signature. It's supposed to be condensed. While you obviously wouldn't write something like that for production code, for golfs and similar bits of uselessness, it's appropriate.
But the holy grail of usability is that which most closely reflects the way in which we have evolved to think.
There's very little innate knowledge which relates to modern computer interfaces, so claiming that evolution and therefore genetics has much to do with it is rather disingenuous.
By your logic we would all be using rocks to pound nails because, "It works, you just have to think a little bit." Being intuitive means that people want to use it that is the point.
Try nail guns instead. An intuitive interface to a nail is a hammer.
The chef makes food that makes me puke. I can't cook. Does that, therefore, mean I can't say the chef did a bad job of cooking? That doesn't hold.
No, but everyone else responding "sucks to be you", would also be an appropriate response. I mean, it's not like it's the chef's problem if tetracyCLIne makes you puke.
You are a good example of the "works for me" mentality in the open source software community. "If it works for me, then it must work for anybody else, and if it doesn't, it's their fault".
The mentality is actually: "If it works for me, why should I spend time making it work worse for me?"
I thought this open source stuff was about the fact everybody could contribute to the program if they wanted
That's precisely the point; random comments without a great deal of thought (which are usually the majority in my experience) aren't a useful contribution. I personally have no problem with sustained, detailed, well thought-out usability suggestions and comments on projects that I maintain, but these are often few and far between.
Slashdot Mirror
We could, but you almost certainly wouldn't like the results. (Well, we most likely could do so theoretically; the ethics board would kill us if we tried.)
Death of cells via apoptosis, phagocytosis and sometimes even necrosis is a very important part of normal processes in your body. WIthout them you'd be a continuously expanding ball of flesh (assuming you even made it to a stage of embryogenesis that could be called a "ball of flesh")
Cell immortality is orthogonal to the abnormal replication present in cancerous cells. There are lots of cells in your body which are effectively immortal but do not undergo abnormal replication, and are therefore not cancerous. [Obvious examples are your spermatogonia and progenitor cells in your bone marrow.]
As far as immune cells go, so long as you've avoided including proliferative immune cells, you should be free from graft vs host issues. Growing the hepatocytes from cell lines that have been sorted pretty much guarantees this.
Dealer stickers used to show up in CA too, but the number of people who force dealers to take them off has pretty much made them stop doing it by default. License plate rings are easier to put on and take off, anyway.
The reason why they're not automatically susbcribed is because not everyone wants to know about the process of resolving their bug; they just want to know when it gets fixed. That said, adding the ability to subscribe at submit@ time is on the todo list.
By filing bugs in it, of course.
Residential Halls are where people live; harassing people in them is never appropriate, and sanctions almost always follow such harassment. Since the nature of sanctions is always a private matter between the judicial committee and the offender, you couldn't possibly have seen a "guy [..] getting kicked out."
Which university were these anyway?
Sure, but that's a slightly different problem. It does tell you if no one has gotten it, or if enough people have gotten it to continue on.
It's actually surprising to me the number of students who have problems in lecture and fail to make use of the professor's and/or TA's office hours where large amounts of time are available to address these very issues. So while it's not possible to give in the huge class, almost any professor that I've ever interacted with is willing to spend time in their office hours (and often outside of office hours if necessary) to help students grasp the material.
Right, for small classes, it's kind of unecessary, because you can ask questions directly of students and often gauge their understanding by their physical expressions.
In the end, it's just another tool in the arsenal. Used properly, it's very helpful; used improperly, it's a waste of time.
Used properly, these things can actually be fairly useful, as they allow a lecturer to get immediate feedback as to whether students have grasped the material being covered in the lecture. They also tell students whether they've grasped the material as well, and also tends to get students to engage more with the material.
Here at UCR, we sell them, and you register them, though only certain classes (usually ones with > 30 students) use them.
Higher-end player pianos (Ampico, Aeolian, Welte, etc.) control the amplitude at which notes are struck, though no where near as accurately as MIDI (which controls velocity and can even modify the velocity after touch). That's why they have more than 89 holes in the tracker bar.
That said, all of QRS's rolls that I'm aware of are 88 note, though they often have instructions for how to modify the amplitude printed on the roll, along with lyrics in some cases.
Genetic variability is important for withstanding change in the environment, but it is not necessary for producing offspring or survival in a controlled environment.
Since such animals would (presumably) be found in very controlled environments, you could easily produce offspring. (This sort of thing is done all the time for mice lines in laboratory environments.)
To survive in the wild, yes. However, to survive in a controlled environment, it's quite possible to have 2 individuals (which can be clones of eachother). This is demonstrated time and time again with mouse lines.
I would assume anyway, that such a procedure would involve first producing a few heterozygous females (clones would be ok) and then manipulating two eggs to degrade the X chromosome of one, introduce a single Y chromosome, and fusing them, then start the cortical reaction, creating a male embryo. [I'm assuming sex determination in wooly mamoths is the same as in Homo Sapiens; I've never studied them.]
What in the world does the X11 rendering engine have to do with "useable for normal people" or the "xinitrc"?
X11, and by extension, the X server, is a layer whose job is to put stuff on screen. That means dealing with the wibbly bits (mice, keyboards, displays, video cards, tablets, pedals, etc.) that cause the stuff on screen to be displayed or interact with the stuff on screen.
Furthermore, it's not like people haven't been modifying how the bits in between your "Project A" and "Project B" work, either. See xrandr 1.2 and 1.3, for example, as well as the countless other projects working on this very part of X11.
That's not to say there aren't problems with X11 and the various implementations of the X server, but it'd help to at least have studied what's actually going on before attacking the work of those who are actually doing the work.
If you want to lock your luggage, the way to do it is to purchase yourself a starter pistol. By all (or at least most?) state's gun control laws, a starter pistol doesn't require registration, but TSA requires it to be locked in a hard case in the presence of the luggage's owner, and they don't use the stupid "special key openable locks."
Otherwise, don't bother to put anything in your luggage that you don't want to disappear.
A platform whose stability is dependent on the restriction of development to specific code is insanely fragile. It should not be possible for developers to destabilize the platform using the published APIs, as the underlying OS should properly manage its APIs and resources. Furthermore, it's not like code audits are performed on the applications that are in the app store, so these arguments are rather specious.
Smog contains ozone, but it is much, much more than just ozone. Nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, peroxyacyl nitrates and various aldehydes are also components of smog.
This leads to a reduction in ozone levels, not particulate levels. [Anyone who actually lives in the areas of the LA basin where smog is a problem can tell you whether its monday morning and friday morning simply by looking at the sky.]
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be hard to get a wrong cert, or that CAs shouldn't have consequences of issuing wrong ones. My argument is that it's currently not hard to get a falsely issued certificate issued by a CA. All you have to do is be in a position to intercept mail sent from the CA to verify identity. Simple DNS poisoning of whatever dns servers the CA's mailservers are using would be sufficient to do this.
Furthermore, it's not like you can't get a chained signing key like godady et. al. use if you have enough money to do so. (Or possibly cheaper, get a wildcard certificate.)
It may be the basis, but it's a fairly easy to exploit basis. Once someone has obtained such certificates, and decided to MITM someone else, the irresponsibility still has to be discovered, and the attack vector discerned. How many people who use the internet on a daily basis for banking even understand how certification works and know how to detect that they've been the victim of a MITM attack? How many of those would know how to track down the CA of the MITM to determine who signed it originally?
Furthermore, how often do people update their browser's CA and signature revocation database?
Sure; you just MITM your targeted CA. It's not like email is a difficult thing to intercept.
If money is no object, purchase a signing key chained to an existing CA and sign away.
The right way to handle this sort of thing is to have a real web of trust of people, and then do caching of the fingerprints of the keys. The first part breaks the CA trusted-party monopoly, and the second avoids non-initial untrusted-cert MITM attacks.
For me at least, the ordering of methods of information transmission that I trust is fairly simple
That sending information to slashdot requires a single click, and sending information to my own https servers requires five seems rather silly; I should definetly be warned, but there's no reason to require me to click to pull up a dialog, click to get the certificate, click to accept, then click to dismiss the dialog. A single message with the certificate information as a warning with a display of what this all means and why it may be problematic is good enough.
It's a signature. It's supposed to be condensed. While you obviously wouldn't write something like that for production code, for golfs and similar bits of uselessness, it's appropriate.
There's very little innate knowledge which relates to modern computer interfaces, so claiming that evolution and therefore genetics has much to do with it is rather disingenuous.
Try nail guns instead. An intuitive interface to a nail is a hammer.
No, but everyone else responding "sucks to be you", would also be an appropriate response. I mean, it's not like it's the chef's problem if tetracyCLIne makes you puke.
The mentality is actually: "If it works for me, why should I spend time making it work worse for me?"
That's precisely the point; random comments without a great deal of thought (which are usually the majority in my experience) aren't a useful contribution. I personally have no problem with sustained, detailed, well thought-out usability suggestions and comments on projects that I maintain, but these are often few and far between.
.