I am a bit suspicious of the value of studies that have not been replicated for more than one case. This is one of those. It is very clever work but I don't think the chances that it will lead to a cancer therapy are particularly high.
The idea behind the work is that cells from breast cancer are one type (epithelial), but they need to convert into another type (mesenchymal) so they can leave the tumor and form metastasis. The clever part is that they nudge the mesenchymal cells to convert to fat cells and stop dividing. The problem is that the occurrence of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition in tumors is a bit of a controversial topic. The idea has a devoted cult following, but it has not been convincingly shown to be true. We know that the breast cancer tumors are epithelial and we know that their metastasis are epithelial. Genetic tagging to detect the transition in actual tumors so far have failed to do so and have shown that you don't need this transition to form metastasis. We also can see epithelial cells leaving the tumor without the need to convert to a different cell type.
In the work, they use cell lines (cell cultured in a dish) that either readily undergo the epithelial to mesenchymal transition when exposed to a hormone that is abundant in the tissue and the blood (TGF-Beta), or a cell line that is mesenchymal (MDA-MB-231). These experiments show that when you inject these cell lines in a mouse you can reprogram them into fat cells. To make sure the reprogramming also works on tumors they use a human patient derived tumor that is grown in mice. Here is where my major problem with the work is. There are hundreds of these patient derived tumors that are available but they do the experiments on just one. Why just one? Why this particular one? If you are developing a cancer therapy one of the major questions is what are the chances that it will work. You answer that question by testing as many tumors as you can.
Step 1: Trump should let all Mexicans who want to work in US to enter and make sure they get jobs (preferably well payed jobs - see step 2).
Step 2: He then taxes their income and uses the money to build the wall.
Step 3: Success! He has a wall and Mexico payed for it! Four more years!
Institutional review boards get involved when there is Human Subject Research. Human Subject Research is a term defined by law and the review boards are involved to protect the well being or privacy of the subjects of the research.The laws are very reasonable and this case is clearly out of their scope. The purported "subjects" are fictitious and the actual subjects, the journal editors and reviewers, are not subjected to anything that does not fall well within the normal execution of their duties. Editors have no expectation of privacy and the privacy of the reviewers is not an issue as they are completely anonymous. There is nothing to affect their well being either, except for some deservedly blemished pride. Applying the rules for human subject research in this case would defy the purpose of the study as they require informed consent and reasonable rational for how the research will benefit the subjects. Imagine the authors going to the editor and asking: "Sir can I send you a fake article to show how bogus your review process is"?.
The review board should conclude that this is not human subject research and wave it off. If anything, they should investigate the ethics of people who published "real" research in those journals.
All this is probably done to help his colleagues in the humanities department who publish in those journals to save face or get some sort of vindication.
Some found a brother from a different father. People tend to f*ck around. It is enjoyable. Family ties are emotional bonds not genetic ones. The only surprising thing in this article is the implication that we are still supposed to be surprised by that.
To some degree it is. These scam shops are getting more sophisticated in their phishing. They seem to have up-to-date information on the people they are trying to scam. I recently got a call on my cell phone from one such shop. I was bored so I played along. It wasn't a robocall that was dialing a random phone number. They had my name and current street address. It would seem they had their hands on the records of a business or public agency that I have dealt with recently and used them in a very targeted way.
While scientist are worried about synthetic smallpox, they have not suddenly become more worried as a result of this paper. The reasons is that the DNA synthesis and virus production techniques are not new. The whole process has been published before and every step is well understood. The virus production is not even the focus of the paper, because there is nothing new about it. The story is that the small pox vaccine from vaccinia virus has some side effects. The authors of the paper decided to check if the related horse pox virus may work better as vaccine. As luck will have it the damn thing is extinct, so they made it themselves using published protocols. The horse pox virus they made seems to work well as a vaccine. The fact that making a synthetic virus was considered just a bump in the road towards some other goal should tell you how easy it is to do. The reason the paper was rejected from more prestigious journals is not that it was conveying some dangerous new information that should be suppressed. Quite the opposite, there isn't anything significantly new in the work. The reason it went to PLOS One, is that the editorial policy of this journal is to publish soundly executed research and not consider if the research discovered something new or significant.
My email is my last name at gmail.com (doe@gmail.com - not real address). So I get Jerry Doe's paycheck statements from UK, Jane Doe's hairdresser appointments from San Francisco, Jesse Doe's phone bills from Germany, and Jake Doe's students keep asking me how they did on the exam (invariably bad). Oh and a collection company tried to collect Jeb Doe's dept from me. Strangely enough the company that sends the paychecks and the phone company do not validate the e-mail addresses of their customers/employees and do not not have a contact or a link in the email trough which I can alert them about the problem (these email are send from do-not-reply-to addresses). Neither does the Jane Doe's hairdresser, so I randomly cancel her appointments from time to time (the email has a convenient link for that). Hopefully this will create some excitement in her life and alert her to the problem.
Self driving pods on dedicated track that move people between stations without intermediate stops was supposed to be the transportation of the future back in the 1970's. The term is PRT - personal rapid transit. Experimental track was build at West Virginia University and is still operating. Even the pod capacity is the same as the one proposed by the boring company
The tariffs have played a major role raising prices by almost 80 percent (partly due to associated shortages)
Can someone explain? The tariffs are designed to help American manufacturing, they make American products cheaper than foreign products.
That seems to be the case if you don't think about it. As several comments pointed out tariffs are not making American products cheaper, they are making imports more expensive. By implementing tariffs you are chocking the supply, which allows the local suppliers to raise their prices. So instead of lowering the cost of American products, you are actually increasing it. This is econ 101 stuff.
You can argue that this would incentivize US steel producers to open new plants and boost output. This is not happening (only one manufacturer activated a single furnace they already had) for several reason. Building a steel plant is a major investment that can only be justified if there is a long term strong demand. The plant also cannot stand on its own - you need supply of ore, coke (the fuel not the drink), qualified workforce, transport infrastructure, etc. As things stand now, none of these is in place and the potential clients are going out of business. So no, nobody is going to build a new steel plant anytime soon. Even if production ramps up, volume is not the only problem. There are a number of varieties of steel that are used in US. The user base for some of them does not justify production for the local market. These varieties become viable only of you have access to the world market, which you don't thanks to the tariffs
The tariffs ignore the basic fact that in the 21st century the world economy is highly integrated. US may not produce much steel, but has a large number of thriving businesses that consume steel and other metals to make more lucrative products. Think cars and airplanes. If you are one of those manufacturers, your product now costs more to build and thanks to the retaliatory tariffs cost even more to export. To sell products that use steel outside of US you now need to move production abroad (that's what Harley Davidson is doing). Your alternative is to sell only to US customers. Either way you will employ fewer people in US. If you notice I am not even touching the effect retaliatory tariffs have on unrelated businesses such as farming. Taken together, in a futile attempt to protect a minor set of companies, the tariffs are destroying a large chunk of the economy.
Where is the evidence for what you are saying? Every partner in this treaty agrees that Iran has maintained their obligations. So do members of the Trump administration (James Matis). You are just a troll spewing bullshit.
What Trump did is not going to be corrected for decades. Sure, next administration may reinstate these treaties. What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility. Who is going to negotiate with US in good fate when they now that any accord may be gone with the next administration? US has had a strong influence on the world and steady allies, because of steady policy, generous aid, certain moral high ground, and ideas like free trade and democracy. All this is now gone or on the way out.
I have worked with Crispr/Cas9 for the past two years and have used the very nice product of one of the companies cited in the article (Synthego). This article makes no sense whatsoever. You can replace every instance of Crispr in the article with Blockchain and it will make exactly as much sense and be even better clickbait.
Two of the companies offer cheap DNA/RNA synthesis service. The third one has cloned yet another Cas9 related enzyme, but still needs to show that the enzyme is of any use. Where does the "computing platform" come from is a mystery to me.
Let me restate the original question in simpler terms: where does it say anything about the causative role of CO2 in global warming?
Maybe, for once, you libtards could stop assuming that your opponents are stupid brainless hilter trump russia nazis?
Oh no Sunshine, I am not assuming anything. I am basing my conclusion that you are an ignorant idiot (stupid and brainless apply too) on the fact that you did not read past the abstract of the first article. Have you read further you would have found that "The greenhouse effect of doubling CO2 is 4 W m-2 and that of human activities during the past century is ~2 W m-2.". Again, I fail to understand some aspects of your last sentence. Please define the following terms: "libtards" and "hilter trump russia nazis". Some of them may apply to you too, but I don't want to jump to conclusions without knowing what you mean by these terms.
This search doesn't even include the basic physics behind the phenomenon which were established back in the 19th century.
Ten years ago, I tried and I failed. Blown my mind at the time.
Are you sure that you had a mind to blow? Based on your post it seems you had a void where you brain should be that suffered implosion rather than explosion event.
I can now freely admit that I was a clueless fucking librtard. Let's see if you can be equally honest now.
You are still fucking clueless. Not sure what librtard means. Please define.
"According to the FCC account, the night supervisor started the drill by calling the day shift warning officers, who had not been told their was to be an exercise, and pretending to be US Pacific Command.
The supervisor played a recorded message which began and ended with the words “exercise, exercise, exercise”. However, the main text of the message was not the same as that used for a routine drill, and instead followed a script used for an actual alert, including the sentence: “This is not a drill.”
Somehow, one of the day shift warning officers heard “this is not a drill”, but not the words “exercise, exercise, exercise”, and “therefore believed that the missile threat was real.”
The officer who had misheard was sitting at that terminal used to send out alerts, and chose to send a live alert from a drop-down menu.
A prompt appeared on the screen saying: “Are you sure that you want to send this alert?” and at 8.07 am, the officer clicked ‘yes’, sending out an all-capitals text message to mobile phones all over the state, saying: “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.”"
So the guy is not warned about the exercise and is given a recorded message, that states both that this is exercise and that this is not a drill. Even if he heard it correctly, what was he supposed to believe and how was he supposed to act? If I were him I would also send the actual warning, because if there was an actual missile attack sending out a timely alert is critical. It is another question that the Hawaii population is unlikely to know what to do and there may actually be very little they can do but panic.
I second that. Look at the Lenovo Yoga line towards the small screen sizes. I replaced two eeepc netbooks for relatives using Lenovo Yoga 12" laptops. They are perfect for browsing, skype and document editing. Compared to the netbooks they are also lightning fast. The Yoga line also folds the screen 360 degrees to give you something akin to a thick tablet. I find it very convenient for watching video and reading.
2 or 3 that I can think of. In the US the major one is ATCC. There are known cases where the cell line was mixed up before it was deposited in ATCC. Consequently everyone who got it from there was working with the wrong cell line. It is also common practice for people to borrow cell lines from the lab next door, rather than buy them for a supplier. My guess is that most of the cell lines used for research were not directly purchased from a supplier. Even if you did, it is not hard for careless worker to mix up cell lines in the lab - mislabeled tubes, handling many cell lines simultaneously while being distracted, forgetting to swap the dirty pipette...
It is a problem that has been known for a long time. Initially we lacked tests to validate the origin of the cell lines. Now we have an established panel of markers that can be used to cheaply and reliably confirm the identity of cell lines. The National Institute of Health, which is the major funding source for biomedical research in the US, requires all funding applications to have a plan for authenticating biological materials including cell lines.
Most of the literature using misidentified cell lines is probably old, although there are still people doing research who are either oblivious to the issue or just don't care. I think the conclusion that all these studies are invalid is an overstatement. Many if not most of these works are likely investigating fundamental biological processes that would be the same regardless of the cell line. The studies that are questionable would be the ones relying on the cell line fatefully preserving the characteristics of the original cell, like studies trying to develop therapies for various diseases or investigating processes carried out by specialized cell types.
There are many other problems that are associated with cell lines that I would think are more serious than the mis-authentication. For starters cells change when they are placed in the dish and loose many of the important characteristics of the originating cell. This means people need to be really careful when deciding if a particular experiment can be done on a cell line. Then there are examples of low level microbial contamination that goes unnoticed by the people growing the cells, but can clearly be detected in gene expression data if you look for it (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239086/ if you look at figure 2 of the paper you can see that some labs are consistently sloppy). There is also a host of technical issues that can impact the conclusions of cell line studies ranging from the quality and source of reagents, to the experience of the staff and the techniques used to maintain the cells. These tend to vary a lot across labs and rarely documented in the publications.
The principle is that any essential and/or frequently performed task should be accessible by a control that does not require drivers to take their eye off the road
Ahh I guess I was wrong. There is no machine learning at all yet.
In the case of Watson for Oncology, those human operators are a couple dozen physicians at a single, though highly respected, U.S. hospital: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Doctors there are empowered to input their own recommendations into Watson, even when the evidence supporting those recommendations is thin.
That's all you need to know from the article. The value of machine learning is the ability to find subtle trends by processing in unbiased fission large and diverse data sets. Instead they fed it a limited data set that was strongly biased by the fact that it is based on 12 oncologist who coordinate their decision (Tumor boards, where all oncologist will gather and review each case is the standard practice in US hospitals). Then there is the "standard of care" approach which is a must for US hospitals - once you have agreed on what the disease is you apply a standard treatment that has been shown in the past to provide the best outcome (hopefully). You can deviate from the standard treatment and seek alternatives only if it was proven ineffective for the patient or you have a strong reason to believe that it will not be effective. Standard of care and treatment options are usually different in different countries, although the differences are unlikely to be very dramatic. The differences are likely in novel and very expensive treatments, and in the formulation of drug and radiotherapy regiments. Basically there is nothing to train the AI on, especially if you are limited to data from one site. Diagnosis and treatment is mostly a series of predefined binary choice for which you don't really need an AI.
IBM actually had a second training site at MD Anderson, but it was not an integrated effort with Sloan Kettering. Instead, MD Anderson was developing their separate product. This turned out to be a disaster due to gross mismanagement. Among other things, MD Anderson management apparently bypassed their IT department when integrating Watson with their medical records system. Guess what happened when the hospital changed the software used to maintain the medical records.
I bet you FBI has never heard of this evidence, let alone accepted it. This is a guy selling his book. The sources are The Daily mail and NY Daily, both known for their responsible reporting of the facts.
But "the car then created not only a lot of jobs creating cars" but everything else that happened because of the car: Paved streets, restaurants, motels, movie theaters, apartment complexes, office complexes, the entire buildout of suburban America, etc.".
Is this guy trying to feed the stereotype that Americans don't know history? Out of his list only "suburban America" did not precede the invention of the car by at least 2000 years (movie theaters don't count because they are just another form of theater). Perhaps he meant "cart" not "car".
Slashdot Mirror
I am a bit suspicious of the value of studies that have not been replicated for more than one case. This is one of those. It is very clever work but I don't think the chances that it will lead to a cancer therapy are particularly high. The idea behind the work is that cells from breast cancer are one type (epithelial), but they need to convert into another type (mesenchymal) so they can leave the tumor and form metastasis. The clever part is that they nudge the mesenchymal cells to convert to fat cells and stop dividing. The problem is that the occurrence of the epithelial to mesenchymal transition in tumors is a bit of a controversial topic. The idea has a devoted cult following, but it has not been convincingly shown to be true. We know that the breast cancer tumors are epithelial and we know that their metastasis are epithelial. Genetic tagging to detect the transition in actual tumors so far have failed to do so and have shown that you don't need this transition to form metastasis. We also can see epithelial cells leaving the tumor without the need to convert to a different cell type. In the work, they use cell lines (cell cultured in a dish) that either readily undergo the epithelial to mesenchymal transition when exposed to a hormone that is abundant in the tissue and the blood (TGF-Beta), or a cell line that is mesenchymal (MDA-MB-231). These experiments show that when you inject these cell lines in a mouse you can reprogram them into fat cells. To make sure the reprogramming also works on tumors they use a human patient derived tumor that is grown in mice. Here is where my major problem with the work is. There are hundreds of these patient derived tumors that are available but they do the experiments on just one. Why just one? Why this particular one? If you are developing a cancer therapy one of the major questions is what are the chances that it will work. You answer that question by testing as many tumors as you can.
Not so. Zeppelins were build with nazi and US support after WW1 and were a major propaganda tool for the nazis.
Step 1: Trump should let all Mexicans who want to work in US to enter and make sure they get jobs (preferably well payed jobs - see step 2). Step 2: He then taxes their income and uses the money to build the wall. Step 3: Success! He has a wall and Mexico payed for it! Four more years!
Institutional review boards get involved when there is Human Subject Research. Human Subject Research is a term defined by law and the review boards are involved to protect the well being or privacy of the subjects of the research.The laws are very reasonable and this case is clearly out of their scope. The purported "subjects" are fictitious and the actual subjects, the journal editors and reviewers, are not subjected to anything that does not fall well within the normal execution of their duties. Editors have no expectation of privacy and the privacy of the reviewers is not an issue as they are completely anonymous. There is nothing to affect their well being either, except for some deservedly blemished pride. Applying the rules for human subject research in this case would defy the purpose of the study as they require informed consent and reasonable rational for how the research will benefit the subjects. Imagine the authors going to the editor and asking: "Sir can I send you a fake article to show how bogus your review process is"?. The review board should conclude that this is not human subject research and wave it off. If anything, they should investigate the ethics of people who published "real" research in those journals. All this is probably done to help his colleagues in the humanities department who publish in those journals to save face or get some sort of vindication.
Some found a brother from a different father. People tend to f*ck around. It is enjoyable. Family ties are emotional bonds not genetic ones. The only surprising thing in this article is the implication that we are still supposed to be surprised by that.
To some degree it is. These scam shops are getting more sophisticated in their phishing. They seem to have up-to-date information on the people they are trying to scam. I recently got a call on my cell phone from one such shop. I was bored so I played along. It wasn't a robocall that was dialing a random phone number. They had my name and current street address. It would seem they had their hands on the records of a business or public agency that I have dealt with recently and used them in a very targeted way.
While scientist are worried about synthetic smallpox, they have not suddenly become more worried as a result of this paper. The reasons is that the DNA synthesis and virus production techniques are not new. The whole process has been published before and every step is well understood. The virus production is not even the focus of the paper, because there is nothing new about it. The story is that the small pox vaccine from vaccinia virus has some side effects. The authors of the paper decided to check if the related horse pox virus may work better as vaccine. As luck will have it the damn thing is extinct, so they made it themselves using published protocols. The horse pox virus they made seems to work well as a vaccine. The fact that making a synthetic virus was considered just a bump in the road towards some other goal should tell you how easy it is to do. The reason the paper was rejected from more prestigious journals is not that it was conveying some dangerous new information that should be suppressed. Quite the opposite, there isn't anything significantly new in the work. The reason it went to PLOS One, is that the editorial policy of this journal is to publish soundly executed research and not consider if the research discovered something new or significant.
If it doesn't it will have overheating issues. If it does, it would just be icky.
My email is my last name at gmail.com (doe@gmail.com - not real address). So I get Jerry Doe's paycheck statements from UK, Jane Doe's hairdresser appointments from San Francisco, Jesse Doe's phone bills from Germany, and Jake Doe's students keep asking me how they did on the exam (invariably bad). Oh and a collection company tried to collect Jeb Doe's dept from me. Strangely enough the company that sends the paychecks and the phone company do not validate the e-mail addresses of their customers/employees and do not not have a contact or a link in the email trough which I can alert them about the problem (these email are send from do-not-reply-to addresses). Neither does the Jane Doe's hairdresser, so I randomly cancel her appointments from time to time (the email has a convenient link for that). Hopefully this will create some excitement in her life and alert her to the problem.
Self driving pods on dedicated track that move people between stations without intermediate stops was supposed to be the transportation of the future back in the 1970's. The term is PRT - personal rapid transit. Experimental track was build at West Virginia University and is still operating. Even the pod capacity is the same as the one proposed by the boring company
U.S.-based PC case manufacturer
The tariffs have played a major role raising prices by almost 80 percent (partly due to associated shortages)
Can someone explain? The tariffs are designed to help American manufacturing, they make American products cheaper than foreign products.
That seems to be the case if you don't think about it. As several comments pointed out tariffs are not making American products cheaper, they are making imports more expensive. By implementing tariffs you are chocking the supply, which allows the local suppliers to raise their prices. So instead of lowering the cost of American products, you are actually increasing it. This is econ 101 stuff.
You can argue that this would incentivize US steel producers to open new plants and boost output. This is not happening (only one manufacturer activated a single furnace they already had) for several reason. Building a steel plant is a major investment that can only be justified if there is a long term strong demand. The plant also cannot stand on its own - you need supply of ore, coke (the fuel not the drink), qualified workforce, transport infrastructure, etc. As things stand now, none of these is in place and the potential clients are going out of business. So no, nobody is going to build a new steel plant anytime soon. Even if production ramps up, volume is not the only problem. There are a number of varieties of steel that are used in US. The user base for some of them does not justify production for the local market. These varieties become viable only of you have access to the world market, which you don't thanks to the tariffs
The tariffs ignore the basic fact that in the 21st century the world economy is highly integrated. US may not produce much steel, but has a large number of thriving businesses that consume steel and other metals to make more lucrative products. Think cars and airplanes. If you are one of those manufacturers, your product now costs more to build and thanks to the retaliatory tariffs cost even more to export. To sell products that use steel outside of US you now need to move production abroad (that's what Harley Davidson is doing). Your alternative is to sell only to US customers. Either way you will employ fewer people in US. If you notice I am not even touching the effect retaliatory tariffs have on unrelated businesses such as farming. Taken together, in a futile attempt to protect a minor set of companies, the tariffs are destroying a large chunk of the economy.
Where is the evidence for what you are saying? Every partner in this treaty agrees that Iran has maintained their obligations. So do members of the Trump administration (James Matis). You are just a troll spewing bullshit.
What Trump did is not going to be corrected for decades. Sure, next administration may reinstate these treaties. What they cannot fix is the total loss of credibility. Who is going to negotiate with US in good fate when they now that any accord may be gone with the next administration? US has had a strong influence on the world and steady allies, because of steady policy, generous aid, certain moral high ground, and ideas like free trade and democracy. All this is now gone or on the way out.
I have worked with Crispr/Cas9 for the past two years and have used the very nice product of one of the companies cited in the article (Synthego). This article makes no sense whatsoever. You can replace every instance of Crispr in the article with Blockchain and it will make exactly as much sense and be even better clickbait. Two of the companies offer cheap DNA/RNA synthesis service. The third one has cloned yet another Cas9 related enzyme, but still needs to show that the enzyme is of any use. Where does the "computing platform" come from is a mystery to me.
Let me restate the original question in simpler terms: where does it say anything about the causative role of CO2 in global warming?
Maybe, for once, you libtards could stop assuming that your opponents are stupid brainless hilter trump russia nazis?
Oh no Sunshine, I am not assuming anything. I am basing my conclusion that you are an ignorant idiot (stupid and brainless apply too) on the fact that you did not read past the abstract of the first article. Have you read further you would have found that "The greenhouse effect of doubling CO2 is 4 W m-2 and that of human activities during the past century is ~2 W m-2.". Again, I fail to understand some aspects of your last sentence. Please define the following terms: "libtards" and "hilter trump russia nazis". Some of them may apply to you too, but I don't want to jump to conclusions without knowing what you mean by these terms.
Let's do a brain test on you. Please cite at least one peer-reviewed, scientific study that demonstrates CO2 greenhouse gas effect.
Here you go (the second hit in the search is a good one, and as you keep going down the list you should be able to get at least a hundred more):
https://scholar.google.com/sch...
This search doesn't even include the basic physics behind the phenomenon which were established back in the 19th century.
Ten years ago, I tried and I failed. Blown my mind at the time.
Are you sure that you had a mind to blow? Based on your post it seems you had a void where you brain should be that suffered implosion rather than explosion event.
I can now freely admit that I was a clueless fucking librtard. Let's see if you can be equally honest now.
You are still fucking clueless. Not sure what librtard means. Please define.
"According to the FCC account, the night supervisor started the drill by calling the day shift warning officers, who had not been told their was to be an exercise, and pretending to be US Pacific Command. The supervisor played a recorded message which began and ended with the words “exercise, exercise, exercise”. However, the main text of the message was not the same as that used for a routine drill, and instead followed a script used for an actual alert, including the sentence: “This is not a drill.” Somehow, one of the day shift warning officers heard “this is not a drill”, but not the words “exercise, exercise, exercise”, and “therefore believed that the missile threat was real.” The officer who had misheard was sitting at that terminal used to send out alerts, and chose to send a live alert from a drop-down menu. A prompt appeared on the screen saying: “Are you sure that you want to send this alert?” and at 8.07 am, the officer clicked ‘yes’, sending out an all-capitals text message to mobile phones all over the state, saying: “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.”"
So the guy is not warned about the exercise and is given a recorded message, that states both that this is exercise and that this is not a drill. Even if he heard it correctly, what was he supposed to believe and how was he supposed to act? If I were him I would also send the actual warning, because if there was an actual missile attack sending out a timely alert is critical. It is another question that the Hawaii population is unlikely to know what to do and there may actually be very little they can do but panic.
An affordable flame thrower for the masses! What could possibly go wrong?
I second that. Look at the Lenovo Yoga line towards the small screen sizes. I replaced two eeepc netbooks for relatives using Lenovo Yoga 12" laptops. They are perfect for browsing, skype and document editing. Compared to the netbooks they are also lightning fast. The Yoga line also folds the screen 360 degrees to give you something akin to a thick tablet. I find it very convenient for watching video and reading.
2 or 3 that I can think of. In the US the major one is ATCC. There are known cases where the cell line was mixed up before it was deposited in ATCC. Consequently everyone who got it from there was working with the wrong cell line. It is also common practice for people to borrow cell lines from the lab next door, rather than buy them for a supplier. My guess is that most of the cell lines used for research were not directly purchased from a supplier. Even if you did, it is not hard for careless worker to mix up cell lines in the lab - mislabeled tubes, handling many cell lines simultaneously while being distracted, forgetting to swap the dirty pipette ...
It is a problem that has been known for a long time. Initially we lacked tests to validate the origin of the cell lines. Now we have an established panel of markers that can be used to cheaply and reliably confirm the identity of cell lines. The National Institute of Health, which is the major funding source for biomedical research in the US, requires all funding applications to have a plan for authenticating biological materials including cell lines.
Most of the literature using misidentified cell lines is probably old, although there are still people doing research who are either oblivious to the issue or just don't care. I think the conclusion that all these studies are invalid is an overstatement. Many if not most of these works are likely investigating fundamental biological processes that would be the same regardless of the cell line. The studies that are questionable would be the ones relying on the cell line fatefully preserving the characteristics of the original cell, like studies trying to develop therapies for various diseases or investigating processes carried out by specialized cell types.
There are many other problems that are associated with cell lines that I would think are more serious than the mis-authentication. For starters cells change when they are placed in the dish and loose many of the important characteristics of the originating cell. This means people need to be really careful when deciding if a particular experiment can be done on a cell line. Then there are examples of low level microbial contamination that goes unnoticed by the people growing the cells, but can clearly be detected in gene expression data if you look for it (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4239086/ if you look at figure 2 of the paper you can see that some labs are consistently sloppy). There is also a host of technical issues that can impact the conclusions of cell line studies ranging from the quality and source of reagents, to the experience of the staff and the techniques used to maintain the cells. These tend to vary a lot across labs and rarely documented in the publications.
The principle is that any essential and/or frequently performed task should be accessible by a control that does not require drivers to take their eye off the road
Ahh I guess I was wrong. There is no machine learning at all yet.
In the case of Watson for Oncology, those human operators are a couple dozen physicians at a single, though highly respected, U.S. hospital: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Doctors there are empowered to input their own recommendations into Watson, even when the evidence supporting those recommendations is thin.
That's all you need to know from the article. The value of machine learning is the ability to find subtle trends by processing in unbiased fission large and diverse data sets. Instead they fed it a limited data set that was strongly biased by the fact that it is based on 12 oncologist who coordinate their decision (Tumor boards, where all oncologist will gather and review each case is the standard practice in US hospitals). Then there is the "standard of care" approach which is a must for US hospitals - once you have agreed on what the disease is you apply a standard treatment that has been shown in the past to provide the best outcome (hopefully). You can deviate from the standard treatment and seek alternatives only if it was proven ineffective for the patient or you have a strong reason to believe that it will not be effective. Standard of care and treatment options are usually different in different countries, although the differences are unlikely to be very dramatic. The differences are likely in novel and very expensive treatments, and in the formulation of drug and radiotherapy regiments. Basically there is nothing to train the AI on, especially if you are limited to data from one site. Diagnosis and treatment is mostly a series of predefined binary choice for which you don't really need an AI.
IBM actually had a second training site at MD Anderson, but it was not an integrated effort with Sloan Kettering. Instead, MD Anderson was developing their separate product. This turned out to be a disaster due to gross mismanagement. Among other things, MD Anderson management apparently bypassed their IT department when integrating Watson with their medical records system. Guess what happened when the hospital changed the software used to maintain the medical records.
I bet you FBI has never heard of this evidence, let alone accepted it. This is a guy selling his book. The sources are The Daily mail and NY Daily, both known for their responsible reporting of the facts.
But "the car then created not only a lot of jobs creating cars" but everything else that happened because of the car: Paved streets, restaurants, motels, movie theaters, apartment complexes, office complexes, the entire buildout of suburban America, etc.".
Is this guy trying to feed the stereotype that Americans don't know history? Out of his list only "suburban America" did not precede the invention of the car by at least 2000 years (movie theaters don't count because they are just another form of theater). Perhaps he meant "cart" not "car".