Actually, we GM people already. So no, it isn't impossible.
-Sean
Re:Improve upon our faults. OCing the Human Brain?
on
The Rights of GM Humans
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Now to talk about genetically superior people, begs the question of exactly what superior means. Because the reaction of the first, unmodified group when it has to deal with the second, modified group will depend largely on this.
(Transhumanists? WTF? You (and others) gotta lay off the sci-fi) Anyways as I mentioned before, not all genetic modification is inheritable. Gene therapy is one example in clinical trials, right now. I think people in practice have no problem differentiating 'good' changes from 'bad' changes. I don't think anyone has a problem with curing terminal diseases with GM. I'm willing to bet that people will be much more supportive of GM for themselves and others when it cures/treats some problem they have or will have. Like aging...
Remember that gene therapy is somatic genetic modification. It is, in fact, a method to alter someones genetic code to improve them. Are you against that?
For the record/. had a story on the 'curing' of a 'bubble boy' using gene therapy. Unfortunately, two of the patients developed leukemia.
Gattaca was actually pretty close. First of all, the first so called genetic alterations from the natural reproductive process is going to be genetic selection. Genetic selection is undetectable, and simply involves choosing the a fertilized egg with the best 'fitness' from a group fertilized eggs. We have the technology to do this now, and do it some limited cases. We could, however, do it on a large scale in the near future using genetic testing, maximizing probabilities for height, weight, susceptability to many diseases, even personality, etc.
The first GM of humans has already begun. It isn't going to be so easy for the olympic committee to tell what has happened and why. Somatic genetic modification is undergoing trials (with some great successes and great failures) where a gene is added to the somatic genome of the host/individual. This is generally referred to as gene therapy. Genetic therapy has the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases both inherited, somatic (cancer), and environmental.
Actually, I got a NetFlix DVD delivered to me once, and I'm not a member. (It was intended for someone who lived a surpisingly far distance away.) Anyways, since I wasn't familiar with NetFlix (at the time), I didn't think was important (I thought it was an AOL like mailing) so it sat on my shelf for a while. Honestly, I don't remember if we ever got to the correct place, in hind sight we probably should have seen what movie it was....
These guys are hilarious. My favorite thing is the "Embryonic cell fusion redefined: The new RMX2010". It doesn't do anything special, but costs nearly $10,000. My question is, though, if they don't have any employees, they certainly have been productive with this machine, the website, and press coverage, releases, etc.
FYI - The real question about this, and other gene therapy experiments, focueses on the safety of the vector being used. In this case an adenovirus virus was used. The virus itself is no longer virulent, but how does the target genetic material get integrated into the hosts genome? If it occurs at a specific site, then safety is maximized. If it occurs randomly, then you run the risk of knocking out genes where only a single healthy allele exists (loss of heterozygosity) and potentially, cancer.
Gene therapy holds a lot of promise, but the early cases of leukemia (remember the bubble boy cure? Two 'cured' patients subsequently developed cancer) make it prohibative. I'm an expert enough to know this a problem (in theory and in practice) but not enough of one to know how close we are to solving it.
So you know, at this very moment I am listening to an extremely obscure, eclectic streaming "net radio" station I support with donations -- that doesn't play any RIAA-style mass hits at all.:)
Here's to that. I don't mean to suggest that expensive albums are better. My fave music usually comes from obscure sources.
she was talking about $2 million to record and produce one album.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree with your reasoning. I bet that as potential sales of an album rise, the costs to produce it rise as well. For example, I am joe blo producer, I get approached by local grunge band to mix an album. Their last album sold 5,000 copies (most probably given away at concerts) and they are signed with an small independent label. Next, I am approached by (theoretical band) hip hop master F, to mix his album. His last album sold 4.5 million copies and he has a worldwide contract with sony. In the first case, I know that there won't be many revenues, so if I want the gig, I won't charge that much. In the second case, I know that everybody involved is going to pull down 6, maybe 7, figures. I'm going to charge a very high rate.
Costs in the Queen Latifah case have risen because everyone knows the album is going to make a bundle and their asking rates make that assumption. It is a classic chicken and egg problem. The costs of making an album went up *after* those albums began making a bundle.
The record companies are used to having a near monopoly like existance. You want Metallica? Well there is little competition, but to go through Metallica's distributor.
Now, competition exists. The record companies aren't stupid. They realize that if they lowered their prices, revenues would probably rise. They will introduce online services, but they want to charge a buck or two a song, when in reality, the price that will bring in profits is more in the neighborhood of 10-20 cents a song.
If they lower prices and follow the laws of economics, they will see revenues rise (in addition to sales).
Here's an idea, why not fix it on those wierd years, without leap years. For example, 2100 is not a leap year, even though it is divisible by 4 (because it is divisible by 400 and 100). Since many computer programs won't handle that correctly, on those days, adjust for the missing seconds (a few minute change). Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
Show me anywhere that actually gets reimbursed for even five percent of the trials in their jurisdiction...
Whether or not there is an answer to this statement, it doesn't make the idea less plausible.
Although I'm usually not inclined to support letting the market decide anything, in this case there are some advantages. In my opinion, the idea here involves much *less* government involvement, not more. BTW - many of the arguments in this thread could be applied to the copyright office as well, which fits a model similar to the one proposed here.
There are various laws throughout the US that require a loser to pay for court costs of both the parties involved, and many fines are specifically designed to cover taxpayer burden on unfair cases.
Nope they aren't. But at least with this method, you can assign cost to those who are abusing the system. Lawyers don't make the decisions, judges/jurys do. The government still makes decisions on patents.
Of course, there is the possibility of abuse by large corporations. But if the penalties are sufficiently high for losing, the small company may benefit richly from the mistake of the bully (who would have to pay for the process).
everybody files because just about everything can get one
Why should we make the USPTO due the homework of a patent lawyer? Another way to filter patents (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts. To prevent abuses, there should be strong penalties for filing a patent that gets overturned in court. Useless patents are never challenged and nobody cares; useful patents get their due. Lawyers make more money. See? Everybody's happy.
Last week, police obtained a warrant to confiscate a computer from an on-campus student. But the warrant wasn't necessary because the student handed over the computer without resistance.
Warrant: Yes. Seized: No. I read the article and it sounded like police stormed some guys house to hide evidence, implying that the evidence was some form of coverup. Jeez, they are looking for the identities of law breakers, and they had a warrant AND the person gave it to them freely.
There is nothing wrong with the police collecting evidence showing a crime, if they know that evidence exists and the crime occured, IMO. What is the problem?
If you had the gun that shot someone, they are allowed to get a warrant to collect that for fingerprinting. How is a video different than a fingerprint. It's still evidence.
I know that many don't like HR Block, because it is expensive, the people are ill-informed, etc. I went there one year out of desparation and was pleasently surprised. ~120 bucks for all of my taxes, completely prepared by the accountant, took about 45 minutes, and they dealt with things that, frankly, I can't like consulting income, deducting home business expenses, student loan interest, etc. Might be a nice middle of the road solution for those who don't need to overpay an accountant, but even the online tools seem daunting.
Be careful, though. They try to get you to sign off on giving away your data to companies that try to sell you things. They don't tell you those forms aren't required, but they really aren't, I didn't sign and they didn't have a problem with it.
Slashdot Mirror
What about something that just scanned for duplicate URLs for the last 48 hours. Not 100% effective but wouldn't be to hard to implement
I guess that would be easier than just *reading* the site that they administer.
-Sean
I was waiting to see the prequels before seeing the orginal series... Who's chewbacca anyway?
-Sean
Anyone else notice that the music was the same for LOTR:FOTR trailer?
Jeez...
-Sean
Agreed.
-Sean
Actually, we GM people already. So no, it isn't impossible.
-Sean
Now to talk about genetically superior people, begs the question of exactly what superior means. Because the reaction of the first, unmodified group when it has to deal with the second, modified group will depend largely on this.
...
(Transhumanists? WTF? You (and others) gotta lay off the sci-fi) Anyways as I mentioned before, not all genetic modification is inheritable. Gene therapy is one example in clinical trials, right now. I think people in practice have no problem differentiating 'good' changes from 'bad' changes. I don't think anyone has a problem with curing terminal diseases with GM. I'm willing to bet that people will be much more supportive of GM for themselves and others when it cures/treats some problem they have or will have. Like aging
-Sean
Remember that gene therapy is somatic genetic modification. It is, in fact, a method to alter someones genetic code to improve them. Are you against that?
/. had a story on the 'curing' of a 'bubble boy' using gene therapy. Unfortunately, two of the patients developed leukemia.
For the record
-Sean
Gattaca was actually pretty close. First of all, the first so called genetic alterations from the natural reproductive process is going to be genetic selection. Genetic selection is undetectable, and simply involves choosing the a fertilized egg with the best 'fitness' from a group fertilized eggs. We have the technology to do this now, and do it some limited cases. We could, however, do it on a large scale in the near future using genetic testing, maximizing probabilities for height, weight, susceptability to many diseases, even personality, etc.
The first GM of humans has already begun. It isn't going to be so easy for the olympic committee to tell what has happened and why. Somatic genetic modification is undergoing trials (with some great successes and great failures) where a gene is added to the somatic genome of the host/individual. This is generally referred to as gene therapy. Genetic therapy has the potential to treat a wide variety of diseases both inherited, somatic (cancer), and environmental.
-Sean
Actually, I got a NetFlix DVD delivered to me once, and I'm not a member. (It was intended for someone who lived a surpisingly far distance away.) Anyways, since I wasn't familiar with NetFlix (at the time), I didn't think was important (I thought it was an AOL like mailing) so it sat on my shelf for a while. Honestly, I don't remember if we ever got to the correct place, in hind sight we probably should have seen what movie it was....
-Sean
These guys are hilarious. My favorite thing is the "Embryonic cell fusion redefined: The new RMX2010". It doesn't do anything special, but costs nearly $10,000. My question is, though, if they don't have any employees, they certainly have been productive with this machine, the website, and press coverage, releases, etc.
Heh, heh...
-Sean
Yup right here, and here, here.
Is there a statute of limitations on dupage?
-Sean
Agreed. Quicktime works just fine for me and I think that generally, the quality of quicktime can't be beat.
-Sean
FYI - The real question about this, and other gene therapy experiments, focueses on the safety of the vector being used. In this case an adenovirus virus was used. The virus itself is no longer virulent, but how does the target genetic material get integrated into the hosts genome? If it occurs at a specific site, then safety is maximized. If it occurs randomly, then you run the risk of knocking out genes where only a single healthy allele exists (loss of heterozygosity) and potentially, cancer.
Gene therapy holds a lot of promise, but the early cases of leukemia (remember the bubble boy cure? Two 'cured' patients subsequently developed cancer) make it prohibative. I'm an expert enough to know this a problem (in theory and in practice) but not enough of one to know how close we are to solving it.
-Sean
So you know, at this very moment I am listening to an extremely obscure, eclectic streaming "net radio" station I support with donations -- that doesn't play any RIAA-style mass hits at all. :)
Here's to that. I don't mean to suggest that expensive albums are better. My fave music usually comes from obscure sources.
-Sean
she was talking about $2 million to record and produce one album.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't agree with your reasoning. I bet that as potential sales of an album rise, the costs to produce it rise as well. For example, I am joe blo producer, I get approached by local grunge band to mix an album. Their last album sold 5,000 copies (most probably given away at concerts) and they are signed with an small independent label. Next, I am approached by (theoretical band) hip hop master F, to mix his album. His last album sold 4.5 million copies and he has a worldwide contract with sony. In the first case, I know that there won't be many revenues, so if I want the gig, I won't charge that much. In the second case, I know that everybody involved is going to pull down 6, maybe 7, figures. I'm going to charge a very high rate.
Costs in the Queen Latifah case have risen because everyone knows the album is going to make a bundle and their asking rates make that assumption. It is a classic chicken and egg problem. The costs of making an album went up *after* those albums began making a bundle.
-Sean
The record companies are used to having a near monopoly like existance. You want Metallica? Well there is little competition, but to go through Metallica's distributor.
Now, competition exists. The record companies aren't stupid. They realize that if they lowered their prices, revenues would probably rise. They will introduce online services, but they want to charge a buck or two a song, when in reality, the price that will bring in profits is more in the neighborhood of 10-20 cents a song.
If they lower prices and follow the laws of economics, they will see revenues rise (in addition to sales).
-Sean
Oops. That is what I meant.
"The Computers That Said No To Drugs"
Heh, heh. Man those are funny. Next up, the cell phone that ate more vegetables.
-Sean
Here's an idea, why not fix it on those wierd years, without leap years. For example, 2100 is not a leap year, even though it is divisible by 4 (because it is divisible by 400 and 100). Since many computer programs won't handle that correctly, on those days, adjust for the missing seconds (a few minute change).
Kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.
-Sean
Show me anywhere that actually gets reimbursed for even five percent of the trials in their jurisdiction...
Whether or not there is an answer to this statement, it doesn't make the idea less plausible.
Although I'm usually not inclined to support letting the market decide anything, in this case there are some advantages. In my opinion, the idea here involves much *less* government involvement, not more. BTW - many of the arguments in this thread could be applied to the copyright office as well, which fits a model similar to the one proposed here.
-Sean
There are various laws throughout the US that require a loser to pay for court costs of both the parties involved, and many fines are specifically designed to cover taxpayer burden on unfair cases.
-Sean
you think trials are free?
Nope they aren't. But at least with this method, you can assign cost to those who are abusing the system. Lawyers don't make the decisions, judges/jurys do. The government still makes decisions on patents.
Of course, there is the possibility of abuse by large corporations. But if the penalties are sufficiently high for losing, the small company may benefit richly from the mistake of the bully (who would have to pay for the process).
-Sean
everybody files because just about everything can get one
Why should we make the USPTO due the homework of a patent lawyer? Another way to filter patents (and lower taxpayer burden) is to leave it up to the courts. To prevent abuses, there should be strong penalties for filing a patent that gets overturned in court. Useless patents are never challenged and nobody cares; useful patents get their due. Lawyers make more money. See? Everybody's happy.
-Sean
Once again it looks like the /. is misleading:
Last week, police obtained a warrant to confiscate a computer from an on-campus student. But the warrant wasn't necessary because the student handed over the computer without resistance.
Warrant: Yes. Seized: No. I read the article and it sounded like police stormed some guys house to hide evidence, implying that the evidence was some form of coverup. Jeez, they are looking for the identities of law breakers, and they had a warrant AND the person gave it to them freely.
There is nothing wrong with the police collecting evidence showing a crime, if they know that evidence exists and the crime occured, IMO. What is the problem?
If you had the gun that shot someone, they are allowed to get a warrant to collect that for fingerprinting. How is a video different than a fingerprint. It's still evidence.
-Sean
I know that many don't like HR Block, because it is expensive, the people are ill-informed, etc. I went there one year out of desparation and was pleasently surprised. ~120 bucks for all of my taxes, completely prepared by the accountant, took about 45 minutes, and they dealt with things that, frankly, I can't like consulting income, deducting home business expenses, student loan interest, etc. Might be a nice middle of the road solution for those who don't need to overpay an accountant, but even the online tools seem daunting.
Be careful, though. They try to get you to sign off on giving away your data to companies that try to sell you things. They don't tell you those forms aren't required, but they really aren't, I didn't sign and they didn't have a problem with it.
-Sean