The suits weren't skintight, they captured the moisture after evaporation.
Yes, but how would they offload the waste heat, since the warm moist air couldn't just blow away into the atmosphere?
The man's name is a killing word, foo! You don't think he can fuck with thermodynamics any time he feels like it?
Although I hate to be the geek that gets this pedantic over a joke, I can't resist pointing out that stillsuits were a Fremen invention long before Muad'Dib arrived, so the laws of thermodynamics must still be considered.
If you want well tested established theories look elsewhere. If you want a theory that is cool and makes you feel good look here. This book is must for all Creationists, home schoolers, and those few brave folks who can reject plain evidence in favor of amazing fancy.
Yeah, I absolutely love it when theories are brave enough to reject all evidence. That's one of the key scientific principles right?
I totally agree with you and tbh hate the fact that testing on animals occurs personally i always felt testing these things on prisoners would be far more effective and probably a benfit to society imo
I really, really hope that you are joking.
Although human models would certainly be more relevant, the ethics here are a total loss. Such a thing would clearly fall into the category of "cruel and unusual punishment," even if we assume that all of the people that are in prison are guilty. Throw into the mix the fact that a number of people in prison don't deserve to be there, and you have a moral nightmare.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you read more about the guidelines for how animals must be treated in laboratory experiments. I assure you (as someone who has worked in science (although never personally with animals)), that the guidelines for the care and treatment of animals is very strict and tightly controlled. Any experiment that doesn't adhere to the guidelines is very quickly stripped of funding. Hell, you can't even get funding unless you provide proof that you know and will follow the guidelines for use of lab animals.
If you really want to reduce animal suffering, look at the meat and agricultural industries. Far crueler things are done to animals every day in the interest of putting meat on your plate than are ever done in a laboratory.
In any discussion of humans vs. computers, it is almost obligatory to mention that computers are really lousy at the game Go.
Not to say that this isn't interesting, but people and computers process information very differently and something things that are trivial for a computer (ie 38209138291/832903821938) are very hard for people and vice-versa.
I guess that I bring that up only because it seems that there is often a sense of "we people are still so much smarter than computers," which is largely just a bunch of BS. After all, as any programmer knows, the best computer program is only as smart as the people who wrote it. Certainly, it is interesting to study because it (maybe) helps us understand cognition a bit better, and it (certainly) helps us make computers do more interesting things. I just get sick of the sensationalism every time a human can "out-think" a computer.
OK, I don't see anybody else here posting to this point, so I thought that I would jump in here.
The thing that is really striking about this study is that this is the first example that I've heard of that uses genetic information about an individual patient to customize treatment. Most treatment decisions simply look at individual phenotypes (ie, apparent, external traits) to help make the decisions, but by starting to look directly at genotypic information, we are getting much closer to the point of actually treating the fundamental, underlying sources of the problems instead of just targeting behaviors.
Eventually, I would expect that this is where medicine will go, especially for things like cancer. For example, let's say that a particular form of cancer is triggered in part by a failure of a given molecular pathway. If you can run a genetic screen (like is being done with the micro-arrays here), you will be to able to specifically diagnose the original cause of the cancer, so by providing a drug that restores this individual pathway, you can block the growth of the cancer and allow the body's natural checks to help bring things under control.
To be clear, this study is a long way from that point. Right now, all they have done is find the correlations between genotypes and responses to treatment, which is a good first step, especially if it provides predictive power. A next step will be to use these correlations to help understand the exact mechanisms happening in those particular cancers and how the treatments have effected those mechanisms. From there, you can start to customize the treatment to be more specific, giving few side effects and more effective response.
In any case, it's pretty neat, and we can expect more and more of this sort of thing as new technologies in biology start hitting the market and older technologies keep improving throughput and efficiency.
This brings to mind the famous Spanish surrealist film maker Luis Bunuel. A lifelong atheist, he often joked about calling in a priest and confessing on his deathbed, just to mess with people.
When he was dying, guess what? He called in a priest and confessed his sins.
That's it. Simple. Sweet. And a REAL crisis - but only to the bottom line. The market has nowhere to go but lower wattage lower cost systems which means lower profits. Ouch.
Except, potentially, lower cost = bigger markets, which means that even if the margins drop, profit may still do okay, given enough volume.
It's that horrid everything is busy and there is never a still camera shot style that Michael Bey the terrible director that he is today.
Seriously - I have a friend that works for Sony doing video processing software - he tells me once of doing a search on the movie Armageddon and not finding a single take as a long as 4 seconds. That's why, if I have to sit through a Bey film, I need to spend the next three days staring at a white wall, just to compensate for the over-stimulation...
I'm really excited about a the idea of this movie, but they couldn't have picked a worse director.
Um... yes. Did you even bother THINKING about what you've read?
Fact: there is no conclusive proof of global warming, but there is vast evidence and general scientific consensus that it is exists.
My question to you is what are the risks of accepting global warming and trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, seek alternative energy sources, etc? Economic collapse? Hardly seems likely - possible recessions, etc. sure, but nothing catastrophic.
On the other hand, if global warming is happening and sea levels are rising and climates are changing (thereby reducing the ability of various regions to grow enough food), what is the risk? Massive starvations and large numbers of displaced people (from low-lying coastal regions)could very easily happen on large scales, which is a great recipe for war (and huge economic collapses - much worse than the burden of regulation).
So, which is the more rational and more fanatical? Changes made based upon a perceived risk to try to avoid catastrophe or plugging the ears and dismissing other's claims?
Oh, and by the way, your analogy to the Y2K panic is exactly my point - one of the reasons nothing happened was that people took the possibility of trouble seriously and worked hard to prevent it.
(Please ignore previous post - accidental hit of submit instead of preview)
However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.
However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.
FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but
Yes, but did you notice (from the summary) that this is an artificial blood substitute? You know, for those that don't like the regular artificial blood.
Or, to put it another way, the only thing that should matter to an employer is that you add more value to the company than it costs to pay you.
Emphasis here on should. Too often, people only care about how many hours you put in and think that more hours is the sign of a better employee. I personally side with an old boss of mine who thought that someone working constant overtime is a sign of a problem. Either that person's boss is piling on too many tasks or that person is in the wrong position.
Then, there was another boss I had who took the attitude that management is a service done to those "under" you, where the manager's role was to shelter them from higher level BS and help them get the job done.
I had another boss once who told us that we shouldn't be "afraid" to come in on evenings and weekends. He was an asshole.
BTW, have you ever tried using polarized sunglasses?
I have prescription sunglasses that are polarized, which give me this effect. Have you found any other good solutions than just trying to find another pair of sunglasses?
(I also have a lumpy skull, so my helmet options are limited.)
"I think it will be 10 to 20 years before transgenic mosquitoes are released into nature. It's very difficult to predict what will happen when we release these things," he added.
"There is quite a lot of research that needs to be done, both in terms of genetics and the ecology of the mosquitoes; and also research to address all the social, ethical and legal issues associated with releasing transgenic organisms into the environment."
It is good to see that the scientists involved are, well, being good scientists.
you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.
In most cases, you are correct, and if I put your quote back in context of your comment, you are correct. However, there are still some circumstances where meat wins, such as on very steep hillsides, etc. where the animals are able to feed themselves through grazing on land unsuitable for growing grain.
I don't mean to be pedantic here. My point is really that there are alternatives to mass production that do make efficient use of the land, and if people made their buying choices based upon how the meat was raised, we could (potentially) have sustainable meat eating. Of course, this assumes that meat demand is reasonable and not influenced by any moronic fads like the Atkins diet.
While I'm wandering off topic here, has anybody else noticed that the Atkins diet has a strange resonance with the fad of the Salisbury steak?
Sadly, you're not up-to-date. Go to this page, then select the plot for mean temperature departure, year-to-date. Then, just for the sake of argument, look at the annual plot for 2005, 2004, 2003, etc.
After doing that, explain how having a large swath of North America registering at or above normal constitutes "below-average temperatures."
Slashdot Mirror
Well, at least you don't have to sit in my cubicle.
(It was like this when I came back from vacation.)
Your business plan intrigues me, and I'd like to hear more details.
Although I hate to be the geek that gets this pedantic over a joke, I can't resist pointing out that stillsuits were a Fremen invention long before Muad'Dib arrived, so the laws of thermodynamics must still be considered.
Yeah, I absolutely love it when theories are brave enough to reject all evidence. That's one of the key scientific principles right?
I really, really hope that you are joking.
Although human models would certainly be more relevant, the ethics here are a total loss. Such a thing would clearly fall into the category of "cruel and unusual punishment," even if we assume that all of the people that are in prison are guilty. Throw into the mix the fact that a number of people in prison don't deserve to be there, and you have a moral nightmare.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you read more about the guidelines for how animals must be treated in laboratory experiments. I assure you (as someone who has worked in science (although never personally with animals)), that the guidelines for the care and treatment of animals is very strict and tightly controlled. Any experiment that doesn't adhere to the guidelines is very quickly stripped of funding. Hell, you can't even get funding unless you provide proof that you know and will follow the guidelines for use of lab animals.
If you really want to reduce animal suffering, look at the meat and agricultural industries. Far crueler things are done to animals every day in the interest of putting meat on your plate than are ever done in a laboratory.
In any discussion of humans vs. computers, it is almost obligatory to mention that computers are really lousy at the game Go.
Not to say that this isn't interesting, but people and computers process information very differently and something things that are trivial for a computer (ie 38209138291/832903821938) are very hard for people and vice-versa.
I guess that I bring that up only because it seems that there is often a sense of "we people are still so much smarter than computers," which is largely just a bunch of BS. After all, as any programmer knows, the best computer program is only as smart as the people who wrote it. Certainly, it is interesting to study because it (maybe) helps us understand cognition a bit better, and it (certainly) helps us make computers do more interesting things. I just get sick of the sensationalism every time a human can "out-think" a computer.
OK, I don't see anybody else here posting to this point, so I thought that I would jump in here.
The thing that is really striking about this study is that this is the first example that I've heard of that uses genetic information about an individual patient to customize treatment. Most treatment decisions simply look at individual phenotypes (ie, apparent, external traits) to help make the decisions, but by starting to look directly at genotypic information, we are getting much closer to the point of actually treating the fundamental, underlying sources of the problems instead of just targeting behaviors.
Eventually, I would expect that this is where medicine will go, especially for things like cancer. For example, let's say that a particular form of cancer is triggered in part by a failure of a given molecular pathway. If you can run a genetic screen (like is being done with the micro-arrays here), you will be to able to specifically diagnose the original cause of the cancer, so by providing a drug that restores this individual pathway, you can block the growth of the cancer and allow the body's natural checks to help bring things under control.
To be clear, this study is a long way from that point. Right now, all they have done is find the correlations between genotypes and responses to treatment, which is a good first step, especially if it provides predictive power. A next step will be to use these correlations to help understand the exact mechanisms happening in those particular cancers and how the treatments have effected those mechanisms. From there, you can start to customize the treatment to be more specific, giving few side effects and more effective response.
In any case, it's pretty neat, and we can expect more and more of this sort of thing as new technologies in biology start hitting the market and older technologies keep improving throughput and efficiency.
Call me when it can run Emacs
It can, but until they can put a Ctrl key on the phone, it is useless.
This brings to mind the famous Spanish surrealist film maker Luis Bunuel. A lifelong atheist, he often joked about calling in a priest and confessing on his deathbed, just to mess with people.
When he was dying, guess what? He called in a priest and confessed his sins.
It also makes it easier to wash your hands afterwards.
Except, potentially, lower cost = bigger markets, which means that even if the margins drop, profit may still do okay, given enough volume.
It is entire too busy ...
It's that horrid everything is busy and there is never a still camera shot style that Michael Bey the terrible director that he is today.
Seriously - I have a friend that works for Sony doing video processing software - he tells me once of doing a search on the movie Armageddon and not finding a single take as a long as 4 seconds. That's why, if I have to sit through a Bey film, I need to spend the next three days staring at a white wall, just to compensate for the over-stimulation...
I'm really excited about a the idea of this movie, but they couldn't have picked a worse director.
Did you even bother READING what you posted?
Um... yes. Did you even bother THINKING about what you've read?
Fact: there is no conclusive proof of global warming, but there is vast evidence and general scientific consensus that it is exists.
My question to you is what are the risks of accepting global warming and trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, seek alternative energy sources, etc? Economic collapse? Hardly seems likely - possible recessions, etc. sure, but nothing catastrophic.
On the other hand, if global warming is happening and sea levels are rising and climates are changing (thereby reducing the ability of various regions to grow enough food), what is the risk? Massive starvations and large numbers of displaced people (from low-lying coastal regions)could very easily happen on large scales, which is a great recipe for war (and huge economic collapses - much worse than the burden of regulation).
So, which is the more rational and more fanatical? Changes made based upon a perceived risk to try to avoid catastrophe or plugging the ears and dismissing other's claims?
Oh, and by the way, your analogy to the Y2K panic is exactly my point - one of the reasons nothing happened was that people took the possibility of trouble seriously and worked hard to prevent it.
(Please ignore previous post - accidental hit of submit instead of preview)
However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.
FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand it.
However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.
FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but
perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand it.
Yes, but did you notice (from the summary) that this is an artificial blood substitute? You know, for those that don't like the regular artificial blood.
Or, to put it another way, the only thing that should matter to an employer is that you add more value to the company than it costs to pay you.
Emphasis here on should. Too often, people only care about how many hours you put in and think that more hours is the sign of a better employee. I personally side with an old boss of mine who thought that someone working constant overtime is a sign of a problem. Either that person's boss is piling on too many tasks or that person is in the wrong position.
Then, there was another boss I had who took the attitude that management is a service done to those "under" you, where the manager's role was to shelter them from higher level BS and help them get the job done.
I had another boss once who told us that we shouldn't be "afraid" to come in on evenings and weekends. He was an asshole.
Now, I'm rambling. -1 offtopic
BTW, have you ever tried using polarized sunglasses?
I have prescription sunglasses that are polarized, which give me this effect. Have you found any other good solutions than just trying to find another pair of sunglasses?
(I also have a lumpy skull, so my helmet options are limited.)
You've not experienced The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner until you've read it in the original Iron Maiden.
Don't forget their excellent review of Frank Herbert's Dune.
This is a really risky move.
To be sure, but from TFA:
"I think it will be 10 to 20 years before transgenic mosquitoes are released into nature. It's very difficult to predict what will happen when we release these things," he added.
"There is quite a lot of research that needs to be done, both in terms of genetics and the ecology of the mosquitoes; and also research to address all the social, ethical and legal issues associated with releasing transgenic organisms into the environment."
It is good to see that the scientists involved are, well, being good scientists.
I seem to recall sleeping in the same bed as my parents sometimes. It was pretty comforting. I know my brother and my cousins did it as well.
The trouble is when this practice lasts into a person's twenties.
you can grow much more grain than meat on a piece of land.
In most cases, you are correct, and if I put your quote back in context of your comment, you are correct. However, there are still some circumstances where meat wins, such as on very steep hillsides, etc. where the animals are able to feed themselves through grazing on land unsuitable for growing grain.
I don't mean to be pedantic here. My point is really that there are alternatives to mass production that do make efficient use of the land, and if people made their buying choices based upon how the meat was raised, we could (potentially) have sustainable meat eating. Of course, this assumes that meat demand is reasonable and not influenced by any moronic fads like the Atkins diet.
While I'm wandering off topic here, has anybody else noticed that the Atkins diet has a strange resonance with the fad of the Salisbury steak?
Ha! Those are kids bikes.
This bike is a man's bike and damn fun to ride. (video)
If they're aphrodisiacs, they aren't very effective. I took 10 the other night, but only 7 of them worked.
or the recent below-average temperatures
Sadly, you're not up-to-date. Go to this page, then select the plot for mean temperature departure, year-to-date. Then, just for the sake of argument, look at the annual plot for 2005, 2004, 2003, etc.
After doing that, explain how having a large swath of North America registering at or above normal constitutes "below-average temperatures."
Global warming is real.