These boys were said to have taken immunosuppressants for nine months before beinig injected with the stem cells. Given this, and that the disorder is genetic, I'm assuming the stem cells are from an external source.
Since the stem cells are turning into neurons, I wonder how this will affect them in the future. Would the neurons remain without immunosuppressants? Or would the boys slowly lose these foreign cells growing up, and ultimately revert back to their original selves.
The nervous sytem is a dangerous thing to manipulate. The effects could range from nothing to the boys taking on traits of their donor. While it's great stem cells can provide relief for this disorder, I hesitate to call it a cure. And if things go south later in their lives, it may very well be a curse.
claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks
Rubbish, if he hadn't done that we'd be in a depression so bad it would have made the Great Depression look like boom times.
Don't forget the bailout happened under Bush. Obama bailed out the auto companies, but that's a different thing entirely that's consistent (for better or worse) with the Democratic party's stand on unions and worker's rights.
600 million is 60% of a billion. If you consider that the smartphone market is still thought of as new, but the PC market is considered mature, these are impressive numbers. Growth potential is still just that, potential, but I can't find any arguments that would convince me the smartphone market is near saturation despite being new.
However, I'm not sure Android vs. Apple with be the defining contest. Sure, the consumer money is in mobile, and that is where the contest lies primarily. But the corporate money for mobile has yet to even make an appearance, and I suspect, as was in the case of personal computers, the winner of that will ultimately win the market. The difference between corporate users and home users is that corporate users are content creators, while home users tend to be content consumers.
And that may be where Microsoft has an edge. Even RIM, if they play their cards right and get a few lucky breaks, is in a better position right now than Apple and Google in this respect. It isn't to say that Google and Apple won't be in a good spot five or ten years down the line. But what Apple and Google are really fighting over right now is brand recognition and trust in the mobile hardware space via usage, something Microsoft and RIM already have.
But were they ever a game changer? I'm not sure Microsoft is who you imagine them to be. Microsoft has a tendency to wait for something new to become mainstream, copy it, and try to take over the market.
Is it a bad thing? In the sense of technological progress and innovation, sure, they tend to leach and don't really contribute. But in jumping in late, they also get to see what works and what doesn't, and expend resources only on the bits that work. They do make changes (Extend) and that can be considered innovation, but whether these are improvements to the initial concept or not is arguable, and their success rate reflects this accordingly. But I think it would be an insult to game-changers everywhere to consider Microsoft in the same breath.
The only game they've really traditionally changed is the business one. The entire game changes when Microsoft jumps into a market. Or at least it used to.
Like a STD for people who refuse to use condoms? That's appealing.
And while GPL may not be viral, it is my-way-or-the-highway. Now, if that were coming out of some 800lb gorilla, it might be effective. But since the community around the GPL has about as much pull as the sickly kid on the playground who always gets picked last, it just means everybody else picks the highway.
You may argue that the GPL is the big dog in FOSS, but looking around at the various large FOSS projects out there, Linux is the only major GPL'ed software. Most others are their own license that tends to be a bit more permissive, or they're LGPL (which is, surprise, more permissive). The only advantage GPL has is in volume, i.e. the number of projects irrespective of size or even success. This just tells me GPL sounds great on paper, but maybe not terribly practical.
It has dawned on me over the years of reading slashdot and following the community that GPL enthusiasts are rarely competent at business. And for those who are wondering, this is primarily why the year of Linux on the desktop has never happened, and is never going to happen.
There's a reason most successful tech companies are the ones who follow standards, whereas the companies that implement proprietary solutions have died off or been marginalized. Companies don't follow standards necessarily for the the Microsoft reason of Embrace Extend Extinguish. They do it because they know it will help the adpotion of their product (the degree of help varies). They do it knowing full well that standardizing goes both ways: it can win them customers from a competitor who's also standardized, or they can shed customers for the same reason. But they know that if they don't standardize, they wouldn't have even a chance at those customers, irrespective of the quality of the rest of their product (Microsoft is an outlier due to it being a monopoly).
And they know that standards are not determined by ideology or by license agreements. Standards are determined by usage. ISO certification doesn't make a standard a standard. Critical mass does (if anything, ISO just formalizes and cements it). GPL people don't seem to get this. They don't seem to understand that if you put out a method that you want standardized, cherry-picking the players who get to implement or dictating how it is implemented is the fastest way to irrelevance.
And they don't seem to understand that businesses are incredibly risk-adverse. Even talking about lawsuits, whether there's any actual standing, will be enough to discourage a business from adopting something, especially something not even close to having that critical mass.
That, and if this is just an API or headers, then it's not copyrightable, with precedent being set by Oracle vs. Google. And a copyright license therefore is inapplicable (or did everyone forget that GPL is enforced via copyrights). Not that it matters. Nvidia and others will just build their own proprietary interface and standardize that via the usual way, through a committee and RAND agreements with other fellow members. It's not like someone has a patent on the actual method.
What actually happened is that they learned about Schrodinger's cat. Since they consider being in a state of both dead and alive at the same time is unethical, they decided to save it from such a fate by killing it before it can be put in the box.
By killing the animals they rescue, they have saved them. Makes perfect sense.
But the value of those patents is part of what enabled Motorola to invest in the R&D that produced those inventions in the first place.
Uh, no... R&D is not supposed to have short-term returns, which is the purpose of patents (think about how long it took for the silicon transistor to really show its worth--not until the Internet boom 40-50 years later). Patents don't pay for R&D. Patents only pay for product development. Research is paid for by preventing companies from going extinct when the next big thing rolls around.
Only, since the economy has moved to a success quantifier based primarily on short-term gains, R&D is seen as a useless money sink. Which is why many R&D departments are no longer in operation. And that which comes out of R&D gets buried, and R&D itself is shunned. It is done out of the fear of jeopardizing the status of existing products. Patents are for when that next revolution comes, it can get litigated out of existence.
The US (and to a lesser extent, European) auto industry has been doing this exact thing for decades. See where they are now.
No, that's the result of a nation that's more interested in the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
It begins with lawmakers putting loopholes into everything, because the very idea of a loophole is to take advantage of wording that's doesn't cover every situation conceivable (and some not). That sets the lawyers up to spend years arguing over every dotted i and crossed t. And then bill for it.
If 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.
There's a better way to prevent tracking, beginning with sending generic system information, user agents, and not accepting cookies, or accepting them for the session only.
There's also the matter with IP addresses, but that can realistically only be fixed with by moving off TCP/IP, or moving entirely onto NATs.
It works out when you take into consideration socks come in pairs. CP violation states that you will get back a full pair most of the time, but occasionally, you will only get one.
Not to mention that the "saved" costs due to the reduced redundancy and increased efficiency will most likely go into some executives' pockets as a year-end bonus, instead of back into the company's R&D.
Big companies are by and large, social parasites. They consolidate wealth into the few by reducing the wealth distributed into the many. There's really no other way to think about them. The only industry that is slightly better is the one that revolves around virtual goods and services, i.e. software companies. But as software, design, and other method patents gain prominence, this is becoming less so by the day.
What? Where did money and hours of gameplay come into this? Sure, you spent $60 (not to mention it used to be $30 for a decent game) and you expect $60 worth of gameplay. But I don't think that was ever the gripe about Diablo 3.
Diablo 3 cannot be played offline.
Diablo 3 cannot be played without a Battle.net account.
Diablo 3 cannot be played without Blizzard's nod each time.
Diablo 3 will stop working mid-way through playing if your connection to Blizzard's servers fail.
What does hours of gameplay have to do with anything when the gripe is about purchasing a product and not be able to play with it whenever, wherever, and however.
As far as we're concerned, that's not what we define as buying a game, at least not to us pre-MMO generation gamers.
Instead, you should read up about J. Edgar Hoover and how he controlled the entire U.S. government by using the FBI to wiretap everybody who was anybody and then blackmailing them with the dirt he found.
I smell a similar thing with Chertoff and DHS, only instead of covering up indiscretions, he wants money.
The best part about the microbreweries and craft breweries is that they each have their own distinct taste, and they're not afraid to experiment. Meanwhile, the mainland European breweries tend to have very similar tastes (the differences are there, but much more subtle), and largely put out European types of brews.
Last time they took alcohol into consideration in the Constitution, it was to ban it. They undid the ban fairly soon afterwards, but I don't think you want a government founded largely on puritan principles to have anything to do with leisure.
To put it slightly more into perspective, each of the dots in the picture are not stars. They're galaxies. That's somewhere around one to several hundred billion stars in each dot.
It's like, there are as many galaxies out there visible to us as there are stars in our own galaxy. Mind-boggling.
Slashdot Mirror
These boys were said to have taken immunosuppressants for nine months before beinig injected with the stem cells. Given this, and that the disorder is genetic, I'm assuming the stem cells are from an external source.
Since the stem cells are turning into neurons, I wonder how this will affect them in the future. Would the neurons remain without immunosuppressants? Or would the boys slowly lose these foreign cells growing up, and ultimately revert back to their original selves.
The nervous sytem is a dangerous thing to manipulate. The effects could range from nothing to the boys taking on traits of their donor. While it's great stem cells can provide relief for this disorder, I hesitate to call it a cure. And if things go south later in their lives, it may very well be a curse.
claims to hate Wall Street while bailing out (and taking huge donations from) giant Wall Street banks
Rubbish, if he hadn't done that we'd be in a depression so bad it would have made the Great Depression look like boom times.
Don't forget the bailout happened under Bush. Obama bailed out the auto companies, but that's a different thing entirely that's consistent (for better or worse) with the Democratic party's stand on unions and worker's rights.
600 million is 60% of a billion. If you consider that the smartphone market is still thought of as new, but the PC market is considered mature, these are impressive numbers. Growth potential is still just that, potential, but I can't find any arguments that would convince me the smartphone market is near saturation despite being new.
However, I'm not sure Android vs. Apple with be the defining contest. Sure, the consumer money is in mobile, and that is where the contest lies primarily. But the corporate money for mobile has yet to even make an appearance, and I suspect, as was in the case of personal computers, the winner of that will ultimately win the market. The difference between corporate users and home users is that corporate users are content creators, while home users tend to be content consumers.
And that may be where Microsoft has an edge. Even RIM, if they play their cards right and get a few lucky breaks, is in a better position right now than Apple and Google in this respect. It isn't to say that Google and Apple won't be in a good spot five or ten years down the line. But what Apple and Google are really fighting over right now is brand recognition and trust in the mobile hardware space via usage, something Microsoft and RIM already have.
Microsoft isn't a game-changer anymore
But were they ever a game changer? I'm not sure Microsoft is who you imagine them to be. Microsoft has a tendency to wait for something new to become mainstream, copy it, and try to take over the market.
Is it a bad thing? In the sense of technological progress and innovation, sure, they tend to leach and don't really contribute. But in jumping in late, they also get to see what works and what doesn't, and expend resources only on the bits that work. They do make changes (Extend) and that can be considered innovation, but whether these are improvements to the initial concept or not is arguable, and their success rate reflects this accordingly. But I think it would be an insult to game-changers everywhere to consider Microsoft in the same breath.
The only game they've really traditionally changed is the business one. The entire game changes when Microsoft jumps into a market. Or at least it used to.
it's a virus you choose to contract.
Like a STD for people who refuse to use condoms? That's appealing.
And while GPL may not be viral, it is my-way-or-the-highway. Now, if that were coming out of some 800lb gorilla, it might be effective. But since the community around the GPL has about as much pull as the sickly kid on the playground who always gets picked last, it just means everybody else picks the highway.
You may argue that the GPL is the big dog in FOSS, but looking around at the various large FOSS projects out there, Linux is the only major GPL'ed software. Most others are their own license that tends to be a bit more permissive, or they're LGPL (which is, surprise, more permissive). The only advantage GPL has is in volume, i.e. the number of projects irrespective of size or even success. This just tells me GPL sounds great on paper, but maybe not terribly practical.
It has dawned on me over the years of reading slashdot and following the community that GPL enthusiasts are rarely competent at business. And for those who are wondering, this is primarily why the year of Linux on the desktop has never happened, and is never going to happen.
There's a reason most successful tech companies are the ones who follow standards, whereas the companies that implement proprietary solutions have died off or been marginalized. Companies don't follow standards necessarily for the the Microsoft reason of Embrace Extend Extinguish. They do it because they know it will help the adpotion of their product (the degree of help varies). They do it knowing full well that standardizing goes both ways: it can win them customers from a competitor who's also standardized, or they can shed customers for the same reason. But they know that if they don't standardize, they wouldn't have even a chance at those customers, irrespective of the quality of the rest of their product (Microsoft is an outlier due to it being a monopoly).
And they know that standards are not determined by ideology or by license agreements. Standards are determined by usage. ISO certification doesn't make a standard a standard. Critical mass does (if anything, ISO just formalizes and cements it). GPL people don't seem to get this. They don't seem to understand that if you put out a method that you want standardized, cherry-picking the players who get to implement or dictating how it is implemented is the fastest way to irrelevance.
And they don't seem to understand that businesses are incredibly risk-adverse. Even talking about lawsuits, whether there's any actual standing, will be enough to discourage a business from adopting something, especially something not even close to having that critical mass.
That, and if this is just an API or headers, then it's not copyrightable, with precedent being set by Oracle vs. Google. And a copyright license therefore is inapplicable (or did everyone forget that GPL is enforced via copyrights). Not that it matters. Nvidia and others will just build their own proprietary interface and standardize that via the usual way, through a committee and RAND agreements with other fellow members. It's not like someone has a patent on the actual method.
What actually happened is that they learned about Schrodinger's cat. Since they consider being in a state of both dead and alive at the same time is unethical, they decided to save it from such a fate by killing it before it can be put in the box.
By killing the animals they rescue, they have saved them. Makes perfect sense.
Forget the Pokemon. Brooklyn Decker, I choose you!
But the value of those patents is part of what enabled Motorola to invest in the R&D that produced those inventions in the first place.
Uh, no... R&D is not supposed to have short-term returns, which is the purpose of patents (think about how long it took for the silicon transistor to really show its worth--not until the Internet boom 40-50 years later). Patents don't pay for R&D. Patents only pay for product development. Research is paid for by preventing companies from going extinct when the next big thing rolls around.
Only, since the economy has moved to a success quantifier based primarily on short-term gains, R&D is seen as a useless money sink. Which is why many R&D departments are no longer in operation. And that which comes out of R&D gets buried, and R&D itself is shunned. It is done out of the fear of jeopardizing the status of existing products. Patents are for when that next revolution comes, it can get litigated out of existence.
The US (and to a lesser extent, European) auto industry has been doing this exact thing for decades. See where they are now.
No, that's the result of a nation that's more interested in the letter of the law over the spirit of the law.
It begins with lawmakers putting loopholes into everything, because the very idea of a loophole is to take advantage of wording that's doesn't cover every situation conceivable (and some not). That sets the lawyers up to spend years arguing over every dotted i and crossed t. And then bill for it.
Look ma, brown contrails!
That would be a bit self defeating, no? Even though it would make perfect sense considering the US government would be involved in any such project.
If 43 percent of American households were removed from the television advertising audience, consumers collectively would suffer because network television as we know it would no longer be a viable business model.
And nothing of value would be lost.
There's a better way to prevent tracking, beginning with sending generic system information, user agents, and not accepting cookies, or accepting them for the session only.
There's also the matter with IP addresses, but that can realistically only be fixed with by moving off TCP/IP, or moving entirely onto NATs.
It works out when you take into consideration socks come in pairs. CP violation states that you will get back a full pair most of the time, but occasionally, you will only get one.
You call those spy satellite photos? Google Maps has better resolution and in color to boot.
Not to mention that the "saved" costs due to the reduced redundancy and increased efficiency will most likely go into some executives' pockets as a year-end bonus, instead of back into the company's R&D.
Big companies are by and large, social parasites. They consolidate wealth into the few by reducing the wealth distributed into the many. There's really no other way to think about them. The only industry that is slightly better is the one that revolves around virtual goods and services, i.e. software companies. But as software, design, and other method patents gain prominence, this is becoming less so by the day.
Once the place is flooded with seawater, they won't be live dinosaurs anymore.
What? Where did money and hours of gameplay come into this? Sure, you spent $60 (not to mention it used to be $30 for a decent game) and you expect $60 worth of gameplay. But I don't think that was ever the gripe about Diablo 3.
Diablo 3 cannot be played offline.
Diablo 3 cannot be played without a Battle.net account.
Diablo 3 cannot be played without Blizzard's nod each time.
Diablo 3 will stop working mid-way through playing if your connection to Blizzard's servers fail.
What does hours of gameplay have to do with anything when the gripe is about purchasing a product and not be able to play with it whenever, wherever, and however.
As far as we're concerned, that's not what we define as buying a game, at least not to us pre-MMO generation gamers.
Instead, you should read up about J. Edgar Hoover and how he controlled the entire U.S. government by using the FBI to wiretap everybody who was anybody and then blackmailing them with the dirt he found.
I smell a similar thing with Chertoff and DHS, only instead of covering up indiscretions, he wants money.
Most of us tend to call it piss water.
The best part about the microbreweries and craft breweries is that they each have their own distinct taste, and they're not afraid to experiment. Meanwhile, the mainland European breweries tend to have very similar tastes (the differences are there, but much more subtle), and largely put out European types of brews.
Last time they took alcohol into consideration in the Constitution, it was to ban it. They undid the ban fairly soon afterwards, but I don't think you want a government founded largely on puritan principles to have anything to do with leisure.
To put it slightly more into perspective, each of the dots in the picture are not stars. They're galaxies. That's somewhere around one to several hundred billion stars in each dot.
It's like, there are as many galaxies out there visible to us as there are stars in our own galaxy. Mind-boggling.
That, and "1234567" does not appear on the graph while the remaining strings from "123" to "1234567890" are all present.