Thanks for the citation. I remember some disgusting facts about mole rats, they eat each other's crap. But this is new.
It looks like the naked mole rats have lower levels of metabolism, they undergo cell division at a lower rate. We have seen in humans, people who starve and live under 1000 cal/day live much longer. So one mechanism is known but not very appealing to humans.
The other mechanisms seem to be highly error free cell division, and much lower rates of mutations per generation. R&D here might help the ALL people. If we reduce the mutation rate, effects of ageing will slow down and it would actually be the fountain of youth.
Cancer is not a single disease. It is a collective name for all kinds of failures in the body when an age old covenant among the cells break down.
Evolution can filter out diseases that affect the ability to reproduce very well very efficiently. If a disease takes so long to bake, it does not affect the ability to reproduce, those diseases will never be filtered out. All the cells in the body have the potential to become a cancer. All the cells in the body will become cancerous after so many generations of subdivision.
This drug that helps the 4% of the people with a specific mutation will not help them against the 96% of the remaining kinds of cancer. Even after this treatment, they can get a different cancer. If the general population has probability p of getting cancer, these patients will have 0.96 * p probability of getting some other type of cancer.
The summary is clear this drug works on tumors caused by one genetic mutation, affecting about 4% of the cancer patients. The tumors appear in many organs but they were all caused by the same genetic mutation.
Friend, I don't disagree with you at all. The impression I got was, "gee these suits don't look or talk like the high handed officials portrayed in the news reports and web fora".
Nope. The law applies only when the victim is in the protected category. The law is "crime against protected minority motivated by prejudice/hatred will get additional punishment". Crime against majority, even if it is motivated by racial hatred gets only the standard punishment, commensurate with the crime, not any additional punishment. Crime against a protected minority, when motivated by hatred, and provable that it was motivated by hatred, gets additional punishment. What is so hard to understand here?
It is precisely this equal protections clause that makes hate crime laws constitutional.
We need to protect minorities as well as majorities. Majorities have natural advantages. Many of their crimes against minorities have gone unpunished. Some members of the majorities are not deterred by the existing laws or enforcement. They feel they can get away with it if they target minorities. We need to deter them, without infringing on the law abiding members of the majority.
That is why hate crime punishments can not be imposed on their own. One has to be convicted of a regular crime first. Thus only convicted criminals are affected by hate crime laws. Both black on white crime, and white on black crime should get and do get equal punishment under the law. Then, once you have a convicted criminal in hand, if the crime is against a protected minority, then additional punishment is added to deter them. Non criminal whites are not affected by hate crime laws. Criminal blacks do not need additional punishment.
Whites are not a protected minority. Historically crimes against Whites have not gone unpunished. There is already enough deterrent for commit crimes against white people. But there is historical record crimes against the protected minority have gone unpunished. So there is a need for additional deterrent. That is the job of the hate crime laws.
Only after proving the crime and securing the punishment, additional punishment is added due to hate crime laws. Only criminals, after being duly convicted, are affected adversely by hate crime laws. You are sympathizing with the criminals who happened to be white.
Hate crime laws are found constitutional by the courts. So what is your problem with that?
Bhagat Singh Thind was a Californian, who challenged the US Govt. Curiously he did not disagree with the law that said "Only Free White people can be naturalized as citizens of USA". It was in the 1920s. He argued that he was a Free White person!
He claimed he was a high caste Hindu speaking an Aryan language. (The language family currently known as Indo-European was called Indo-Aryan then). He claimed he belong to the ruling caste from Caucusus that conquered India. He avowed that he has as much prejudice against low caste people as white people have against black people. He cited the miscegenation laws of USA and claimed the traditional Indian caste system enforced similar laws and maintained his racial purity. So, "I am white, let me in". That was his argument
It reached the Supreme Court, and Justice Sutherland ruled, conceding that he was a Caucasian by language, he denied he is white by race by the common understanding of the word White race. So his application was denied
What is really interesting is, no one counter argued that white people were not prejudiced nor did anyone see anything wrong in being prejudiced. We have come a long way baby.
You are correct. And the law says so too. You can not bring a hate crime charge by itself. Hating is not a crime. But hate motivates you to commit some crime, the motivation changes the amount of punishment. You must charge, prove and convict on the regular charge. If the primary charge does not stick, hate crime law does apply. If the crime is motivated by hate/prejudice against a protected minority, then additional punishment is levied as a deterrent. That is because there is a history of crime being committed against that minority, and the perpetrators have traditionally been getting away scot free, there is a need for additional deterrent.
These laws have been found constitutional by all the courts.
Just last week there was a panel of law enforcement officials having an out reach program at our Hindu temple. FBI, state attorney, local police chief, etc. One thing they said was "ethnic intimidation" can not be used as a charge by itself. It can only be an additional charge, on another crime. They said, paraphrasing here, "intimidation is a crime, harassment is a crime, no matter who does it to whom. If we can show that it was motivated by hatred or prejudice then we can tack on an additional ethnic intimidation charge. If we can not prove this we will not add this charge. Sometimes adding an iffy secondary charge makes the jury dismiss the primary charge as well. Sometimes the press focuses on us not making the ethnic intimidation charge and people don't notice we made a standard plain vanilla intimidation charge. Report all harassment, all intimidation. Even if we can not charge the ethnic intimidation, we can make the primary charge stick. Even if the ethnic intimidation is not charged, just regular harassment/intimidation charge is enough to send the signal that these are crimes and there are consequences. Victims not reporting crime emboldens criminals, even more than charges getting dismissed. "
All the people who attended it were fairly affluent well educated Indians. I am sure in every community outreach people who have the time, energy and motivation to listen to bunch of law enforcement officials on a Wednesday evening would be fairly affluent and well educated. Made us realize despite conflicting media portrayals these are just plain hard working underpaid unsung unheralded Americans trying to do the best job they can.
He probably got to eat for free, and take home left overs and feed rest of his family too. Saved money definitely. Only compromise is having to agree that what Red Lobster dishes out is food then have the gumption to eat it.
Come on. It is a free society with full freedom of expression. Lying is his fundamental right, and he exercised it. If his employees were foolish enough to believe his lies, it is their fault right? Why should he be indicted? You don't see Trump supporters suing Trump for lying. What's good enough for Trumpsters is good enough for techies.
Microsoft has invested in technology to avoid knowing any thing about malware, ransomware etc. So it will not know any ransomware ever. So, for ever, it can honestly say, "No ransomware known to me will work in Windows 10"
He claims to have saved the company 120 million dollars over the next ten years, claimed 12 million dollars as the bonus for this great feat and has already left town.
I was, but was in India. Came in in 1991. From that day I am amazed by the lack of concern most ordinary Americans have for the level of imports or the export of technology.
USA typically has been creating 100,000 to 200,000 new jobs a month. This 125 job loss should not even be a blip in the radar, but it is being taken so seriously with good media coverage.
Where was the outrage when blue collar jobs by 100,000s were disappearing all through 80s and 90s? Textile jobs, furniture making... before that auto jobs, before that railroad jobs... White collar and the educated never cared, never bothered and were telling the 50 year old furniture makers to learn new trades. Well, it is all coming back to them, now they cry a river for the loss of 125 jobs.
In his time, there were no orbital telescopes or non terrestrial telescopes. So for all the types of telescopes that he knew his assertion stands.
It is interesting you bring up adaptive optics and image post processing. How would I know the observed displacements are real observation, not some software glitch in adaptive optics or post processing?
400 years ago when Galileo was using astronomical telescopes (sorry I misused the term terrestrial telescope. Astronomical telescopes use two lenses or one lens and one mirror to produce an inverted image. Terrestrial telescopes use an additional lens to create the image right side up. The term I should have used is earth based telescopes) with such bad quality lenses, the spherical aberration was significant. The chromatic fringes, blurry mildly out of focus images had an eerie quality. The Church very wary of it, the way I am wary of image processing. Even when he focused on distant church steeples and villas on hills and showed the images were real, the upside down nature of them, and the shifted colors and double and triple images due to chromatic ghosting made it look very suspect. They could never satisfy themselves there is no devil inside the machine producing images to fool them.
Galileo also used a classic pedantic technique of conversation between three people, one wise teacher, one bright student and one ignorant student to explain his theories. His adversaries framed him well by claiming the ignorant student character was modeled after the Pope and set the Church against him.
i3 looks like it was designed by Mattel or Fischer-Price for two year olds. Ghastly thing.
I dont pay much attention to styling, and I almost bought i3 purely on the specs. 120 mile range and a limp home ic engine for emergencies. Enough, I said. Eagerly waited for it. BMW released a truly God awful car with 2000 lb carbon frame and the ugliest BMW ever made. They also released a Tesla competitor i8 or i9. That thing is cool. But priced at 90K to 120K I will only gawk at it.
Proofs are possible only in mathematics. No amount of affirming observations is considered proof. One counter observation is enough to disprove.
Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, calculated what would be observed. The apparent angular displacement due to such micro lensing turned out to be so small, he said, "such a small displacement is unlikely to be observed". He is right, even after this observation, no terrestrial telescope can hope to observe this. You need to get a telescope the size of a school bus into orbit, install a contact lens to that telescope in orbit, and point it at the right spot to see it.
Government regulation takes away profits from a job creator. It is the right of Apple and other corporations to squeeze its customers as much as they can bear. In fact it is the fiduciary responsibility of the board to maximize profits. Apple can be sued if it did not maximize its profits. If the thread of regulation has this chilling effect on the profits, imagine how much damage actual regulation costs these companies.
Looks like you are trying to establish a quaint notion that it is the job of the government to protect the people and small guy against big corporations. No sir. It is the job of the government to make sure big corporations get all the profits they can get and then we can nurture some faint hope that a few cents of that profits might be used to create a few minimum wage jobs.
1.2 billion people use whats app because it is free or nearly free. If they tried to make any profit, most of the user base will vanish. Then how do they justify the lofty stratospheric valuation of these companies? Would people actually pay money to forward tasteless memes, debunked snopes stories and selfies of themselves eating breakfast?
Slashdot Mirror
It looks like the naked mole rats have lower levels of metabolism, they undergo cell division at a lower rate. We have seen in humans, people who starve and live under 1000 cal/day live much longer. So one mechanism is known but not very appealing to humans.
The other mechanisms seem to be highly error free cell division, and much lower rates of mutations per generation. R&D here might help the ALL people. If we reduce the mutation rate, effects of ageing will slow down and it would actually be the fountain of youth.
Evolution can filter out diseases that affect the ability to reproduce very well very efficiently. If a disease takes so long to bake, it does not affect the ability to reproduce, those diseases will never be filtered out. All the cells in the body have the potential to become a cancer. All the cells in the body will become cancerous after so many generations of subdivision.
This drug that helps the 4% of the people with a specific mutation will not help them against the 96% of the remaining kinds of cancer. Even after this treatment, they can get a different cancer. If the general population has probability p of getting cancer, these patients will have 0.96 * p probability of getting some other type of cancer.
The summary is clear this drug works on tumors caused by one genetic mutation, affecting about 4% of the cancer patients. The tumors appear in many organs but they were all caused by the same genetic mutation.
Friend, I don't disagree with you at all. The impression I got was, "gee these suits don't look or talk like the high handed officials portrayed in the news reports and web fora".
The Ice Station Zebra option should add cartoons of Disney characters as faint yellow dots after stripping the original finger printing.
Nope. The law applies only when the victim is in the protected category. The law is "crime against protected minority motivated by prejudice/hatred will get additional punishment". Crime against majority, even if it is motivated by racial hatred gets only the standard punishment, commensurate with the crime, not any additional punishment. Crime against a protected minority, when motivated by hatred, and provable that it was motivated by hatred, gets additional punishment. What is so hard to understand here?
We need to protect minorities as well as majorities. Majorities have natural advantages. Many of their crimes against minorities have gone unpunished. Some members of the majorities are not deterred by the existing laws or enforcement. They feel they can get away with it if they target minorities. We need to deter them, without infringing on the law abiding members of the majority.
That is why hate crime punishments can not be imposed on their own. One has to be convicted of a regular crime first. Thus only convicted criminals are affected by hate crime laws. Both black on white crime, and white on black crime should get and do get equal punishment under the law. Then, once you have a convicted criminal in hand, if the crime is against a protected minority, then additional punishment is added to deter them. Non criminal whites are not affected by hate crime laws. Criminal blacks do not need additional punishment.
Only after proving the crime and securing the punishment, additional punishment is added due to hate crime laws. Only criminals, after being duly convicted, are affected adversely by hate crime laws. You are sympathizing with the criminals who happened to be white.
Hate crime laws are found constitutional by the courts. So what is your problem with that?
He claimed he was a high caste Hindu speaking an Aryan language. (The language family currently known as Indo-European was called Indo-Aryan then). He claimed he belong to the ruling caste from Caucusus that conquered India. He avowed that he has as much prejudice against low caste people as white people have against black people. He cited the miscegenation laws of USA and claimed the traditional Indian caste system enforced similar laws and maintained his racial purity. So, "I am white, let me in". That was his argument
It reached the Supreme Court, and Justice Sutherland ruled, conceding that he was a Caucasian by language, he denied he is white by race by the common understanding of the word White race. So his application was denied
What is really interesting is, no one counter argued that white people were not prejudiced nor did anyone see anything wrong in being prejudiced. We have come a long way baby.
[Citation Provided]
These laws have been found constitutional by all the courts.
All the people who attended it were fairly affluent well educated Indians. I am sure in every community outreach people who have the time, energy and motivation to listen to bunch of law enforcement officials on a Wednesday evening would be fairly affluent and well educated. Made us realize despite conflicting media portrayals these are just plain hard working underpaid unsung unheralded Americans trying to do the best job they can.
He probably got to eat for free, and take home left overs and feed rest of his family too. Saved money definitely. Only compromise is having to agree that what Red Lobster dishes out is food then have the gumption to eat it.
Did the lawyer or the plaintiff have any risk at all they might lose something, anything? If they did not have any such risk, it is a broken system
All of us who could have benefited by competition if Bradley13 was competing in the market. He was scared away. We ALL lost.
Come on. It is a free society with full freedom of expression. Lying is his fundamental right, and he exercised it. If his employees were foolish enough to believe his lies, it is their fault right? Why should he be indicted? You don't see Trump supporters suing Trump for lying. What's good enough for Trumpsters is good enough for techies.
Microsoft has invested in technology to avoid knowing any thing about malware, ransomware etc. So it will not know any ransomware ever. So, for ever, it can honestly say, "No ransomware known to me will work in Windows 10"
He claims to have saved the company 120 million dollars over the next ten years, claimed 12 million dollars as the bonus for this great feat and has already left town.
I was, but was in India. Came in in 1991. From that day I am amazed by the lack of concern most ordinary Americans have for the level of imports or the export of technology.
Where was the outrage when blue collar jobs by 100,000s were disappearing all through 80s and 90s? Textile jobs, furniture making... before that auto jobs, before that railroad jobs ... White collar and the educated never cared, never bothered and were telling the 50 year old furniture makers to learn new trades. Well, it is all coming back to them, now they cry a river for the loss of 125 jobs.
If Facebook interfaces with a continuous blood flow monitor, people would proudly broadcast their harmone levels to the whole world.
OK, let us move on.
It is interesting you bring up adaptive optics and image post processing. How would I know the observed displacements are real observation, not some software glitch in adaptive optics or post processing?
400 years ago when Galileo was using astronomical telescopes (sorry I misused the term terrestrial telescope. Astronomical telescopes use two lenses or one lens and one mirror to produce an inverted image. Terrestrial telescopes use an additional lens to create the image right side up. The term I should have used is earth based telescopes) with such bad quality lenses, the spherical aberration was significant. The chromatic fringes, blurry mildly out of focus images had an eerie quality. The Church very wary of it, the way I am wary of image processing. Even when he focused on distant church steeples and villas on hills and showed the images were real, the upside down nature of them, and the shifted colors and double and triple images due to chromatic ghosting made it look very suspect. They could never satisfy themselves there is no devil inside the machine producing images to fool them.
Galileo also used a classic pedantic technique of conversation between three people, one wise teacher, one bright student and one ignorant student to explain his theories. His adversaries framed him well by claiming the ignorant student character was modeled after the Pope and set the Church against him.
I dont pay much attention to styling, and I almost bought i3 purely on the specs. 120 mile range and a limp home ic engine for emergencies. Enough, I said. Eagerly waited for it. BMW released a truly God awful car with 2000 lb carbon frame and the ugliest BMW ever made. They also released a Tesla competitor i8 or i9. That thing is cool. But priced at 90K to 120K I will only gawk at it.
Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, calculated what would be observed. The apparent angular displacement due to such micro lensing turned out to be so small, he said, "such a small displacement is unlikely to be observed". He is right, even after this observation, no terrestrial telescope can hope to observe this. You need to get a telescope the size of a school bus into orbit, install a contact lens to that telescope in orbit, and point it at the right spot to see it.
Looks like you are trying to establish a quaint notion that it is the job of the government to protect the people and small guy against big corporations. No sir. It is the job of the government to make sure big corporations get all the profits they can get and then we can nurture some faint hope that a few cents of that profits might be used to create a few minimum wage jobs.
1.2 billion people use whats app because it is free or nearly free. If they tried to make any profit, most of the user base will vanish. Then how do they justify the lofty stratospheric valuation of these companies? Would people actually pay money to forward tasteless memes, debunked snopes stories and selfies of themselves eating breakfast?