Even if did say that, as someone working in medical research, I can vouch for the fact that the first question to follow any claims of something working in an animal model is "so what about in humans". It's a running joke that we can cure every disease known to man - in mice. But that's what a model is: a controlled, repeatable, system in which to roughly test hypothesis before moving onto the real subject.
Not to mention that most people in prison don't have father figures in their lives, which means that marriage has a strong positive effect on society.
Apologies for answering your unsubstantiated claims with anecdotal evidence (who is worse here?) But I'm a son of a divorcee mother who is currently following a successful career in medical research. The thought of my parents still being together is horrendous - not because either is a bad person, they are not, but because they are/were an awful match. My dad is now happily re-married, my mother in a good relationship. I also have a complicated mix of half/step brothers/sisters - but the end result is a supportive and loving extended family.
Good parenting, supportive family and prioritising the needs of the children - particularly over petty differences and personal inconvenience - is what makes the difference. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
I've developed quite a bit of code in the process of my PhD that I'm in the process of open-sourcing on github (backed with a website here I've developed with open-access scientific protocols - no code there yet; getting clearance).
As others have mentioned the big anti- to this is the problem of publication. If I put my software up there free to use, there is nothing to stop someone else swooping in and using it to pre-empt the results I've spent time writing the software to accomplish (I'm helped slightly by working an obscure angle on an equally obscure field). Further, opening software up to outside contributions opens all sorts of issues with authorship, credit, etc. As it stands I can publish a paper on the software with my name on it - but if I had 20 or so contributors are they all going to want their names on there? All solvable problems - there is typically a threshold of contribution for acknowledgement; and the fact of contribution is preserved right there in the git log. But not something most people want to spend time thinking about.
There is also a slight over-enthusiasm for patents - the first reaction I get to showing off my software is "you should patent it!" on the idea that I would get stinking rich. That's unrealistic for most software, but open-sourcing it immediately scuppers that as a future possibility. When you're funded via various grant organisations it can get more complex (everyone has to agree). I'm lucky enough to be funded by the Wellcome Trust who are pro open-access - and I'm hoping that will translate to pro open-source too.
The car can never have enough data to make an informed decision on this. What about an empty bus? What if there is a children's nursery under the bridge?
In an accident the car should be following the same decision tree as any normal driver. 1. Protect the lives of the occupants of the car 2. Avoid pedestrians 3. Avoid everything else
If you're driving along a lane at 60mph with your family in the car and have the choice between hitting a stranger or ploughing yourself and your family off a cliff you hit the pedestrian (sorry).
If you're trundling through 20mph and have the choice of hitting a pedestrian or a wall. You would hopefully go for the wall.
This is clearly a copyright violation as the law currently stands. But I think you could make a good argument for user manuals - that are only of value if you have a product to begin with - should not be covered under copyright.
True the results were faked in some cases but putting those aside (and going completely from memory) the groups were still poorly matched and the conclusions bore little relation to the analysis. It's more that I was getting at - do the data/statistics support the claim of the paper - and I don't think they did.
For catching intentional faking I've always quite liked Benford's Law (according to a very short section in Wikipedia article it's been successfully tested against scientific fraud). At the very least it would make it a lot harder to fake the demographics.
The costs involved in performing research would preclude this working in most fields. However where there would be considerable value in this sort of 'out of house' service is in performing re-analysis of the raw data behind the publication. Stats is hard and unfortunately it's all too easy to make a bit of a hash out of it. Unfortunately the current peer review process doesn't always address this adequately - either because the reviewers aren't neccessarily any better at statistics themselves or the data as presented has been stepped through processing that may add unexpected bias. Having a career statistician run a leery eye over the analysis in the orginal Wakefield paper certainly wouldn't have hurt.
What we really need to know is why it didn't need flight software BEFORE now?! Obviously it isn't really on Mars... if 'Mars' even exists. Lizards all the way down I tell you! LIZARDS!!
I'd absolutely condone last-ditch treatment for individuals but then that's often done anyway - in a controlled and reportable manner. In that way we can learn something from the outcome and improve the treatment in the future so everyone benefits.
This is about preventing organisations using stem cells as the latest snake oil cure-all while circumventing regulation on a 'oh but it's just your own cells so it's not a medical procedure' which is patently false.
It's either an effective medical procedure and needs regulating, or isn't and they're guilty of false advertising.
Or - back in reality - it would stop desperate patients/relatives being fleeced by 'doctors' promising results from unproven techniques. I assume these kind doctors are not offering a 'no fix no fee' deal?
As for "it shouldn't be that bad" taking cells from one place and putting them somewhere else. Hello, cancer? Endometriosis?
This is the same dodgy reasoning that says 'natural' remedies are better because they're 'natural' and so are we... politely ignoring that what you're putting into yourself has been processed and altered (dried, heated, distilled). Likewise for stem cell treatments: Transplantation requires a lot more than sucking them out and putting them back in - not least of all sorting and phenotyping. All cells grown in culture change and over time and most tend towards a cancer-like phenotypes absent control of their environment. It's forbidden to work on your own cells in a lab for this very reason: if you inadvertently transform the cells in vitro then self-innoculate they will not be killed (*effectively).
Seems exactly like the kind of thing where you'd want someone to know what they're doing.
I always thought, that the fairest court of all, would be the one where the "prosecutor" (for lack of better term) would be searching for the "truth", not necessarily going for "conviction".
You're describing the Inquisitorial system of justice as practised in such exotic locations as France (and most of the world using civil as opposed to common law).
Some of those "toxins" are involved in the release of fat from adiposcytes and research has shown they are essential for wait loss and avoiding type 2 diabetes.
Microwaves cook 'inside out' at the cellular level. That is they heat the water which in turn cooks the yummy protein and carbohydrate.
Cook a chicken fillet and the outside is most definitely cooked before the inside presumably because the microwaves have to get through the water nearer the surface to reach the middle. As the outside of the meat dries they can penetrate further - in much the same way as heat in an conventional oven.
Nailed it. Here in Aus, you can get STI checks free, and they actually encourage you to get one every time you change partners.
Same in the UK - although they don't shout about it enough in my opinion, they have started doing testing in student bars etc. which is great move. I've been checked regularly over the past few years and make a point of being open about it. Sure you get the standard 'ha ha you dirty bastard' response to begin with. But who is dirtier? It's the equivalent of being proud for never washing your hands.
The frustrating thing is these are all absolutely preventable diseases. The religious anti-sex brigade are causing considerable pain and suffering -how moral- by perpetuating the lie that "sex is bad m'kay" and that where you stick your bits is somehow something to be ashamed of - not to mention someone else's business.
Even if you agree with the premise being pushed here it doesn't mean "religion is good for us". All that is proved is that religion is a side effect of other behaviours that are "good for us" and that on balance religion is not deleterious enough to counterbalance the good that is done.
As in your bias/racism point our ability to identify this means that we now have the ability to have one without the other. We have no obligation to pander to evolutionary hangovers.
I frequently walk to work with music in my ears and sometimes (if its a good tune or I need waking up) quite loud. So I make a point of looking both ways - even against the traffic (emergency vehicles) - when approaching crossings and looking again as I step out.
I've pulled someone back from a pedestrian crossing who stepped out on green into an oncoming police car - blaring sirens/lights skidding around a blind corner. You need to look and keep looking.
I'm not sure what the solution is for those with poor eyesight. Everyone else (and the environment) suffering noise pollution seems like a poor solution. A higher frequency - and quieter - travelling shorter distances may be a nice compromise. I'll be honest, I was looking forward to not hearing the perpetual background hum.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, it's stopped working!
TFA doesn't say what the headline says it does.
Even if did say that, as someone working in medical research, I can vouch for the fact that the first question to follow any claims of something working in an animal model is "so what about in humans". It's a running joke that we can cure every disease known to man - in mice. But that's what a model is: a controlled, repeatable, system in which to roughly test hypothesis before moving onto the real subject.
Apologies for answering your unsubstantiated claims with anecdotal evidence (who is worse here?) But I'm a son of a divorcee mother who is currently following a successful career in medical research. The thought of my parents still being together is horrendous - not because either is a bad person, they are not, but because they are/were an awful match. My dad is now happily re-married, my mother in a good relationship. I also have a complicated mix of half/step brothers/sisters - but the end result is a supportive and loving extended family.
Good parenting, supportive family and prioritising the needs of the children - particularly over petty differences and personal inconvenience - is what makes the difference. Marriage has nothing to do with it.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of pirates suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
I've developed quite a bit of code in the process of my PhD that I'm in the process of open-sourcing on github (backed with a website here I've developed with open-access scientific protocols - no code there yet; getting clearance).
As others have mentioned the big anti- to this is the problem of publication. If I put my software up there free to use, there is nothing to stop someone else swooping in and using it to pre-empt the results I've spent time writing the software to accomplish (I'm helped slightly by working an obscure angle on an equally obscure field). Further, opening software up to outside contributions opens all sorts of issues with authorship, credit, etc. As it stands I can publish a paper on the software with my name on it - but if I had 20 or so contributors are they all going to want their names on there? All solvable problems - there is typically a threshold of contribution for acknowledgement; and the fact of contribution is preserved right there in the git log. But not something most people want to spend time thinking about.
There is also a slight over-enthusiasm for patents - the first reaction I get to showing off my software is "you should patent it!" on the idea that I would get stinking rich. That's unrealistic for most software, but open-sourcing it immediately scuppers that as a future possibility. When you're funded via various grant organisations it can get more complex (everyone has to agree). I'm lucky enough to be funded by the Wellcome Trust who are pro open-access - and I'm hoping that will translate to pro open-source too.
And don't release it.
I have bank accounts with the Co-op, Nationwide and RBS and 3 provide OTP calculators.
But the definition of "bear" is "to carry".
Debian based,
Less whitespace
Than
Your
Comment
The car can never have enough data to make an informed decision on this. What about an empty bus? What if there is a children's nursery under the bridge?
In an accident the car should be following the same decision tree as any normal driver.
1. Protect the lives of the occupants of the car
2. Avoid pedestrians
3. Avoid everything else
If you're driving along a lane at 60mph with your family in the car and have the choice between hitting a stranger or ploughing yourself and your family off a cliff you hit the pedestrian (sorry).
If you're trundling through 20mph and have the choice of hitting a pedestrian or a wall. You would hopefully go for the wall.
This is clearly a copyright violation as the law currently stands. But I think you could make a good argument for user manuals - that are only of value if you have a product to begin with - should not be covered under copyright.
True the results were faked in some cases but putting those aside (and going completely from memory) the groups were still poorly matched and the conclusions bore little relation to the analysis. It's more that I was getting at - do the data/statistics support the claim of the paper - and I don't think they did.
For catching intentional faking I've always quite liked Benford's Law (according to a very short section in Wikipedia article it's been successfully tested against scientific fraud). At the very least it would make it a lot harder to fake the demographics.
The costs involved in performing research would preclude this working in most fields. However where there would be considerable value in this sort of 'out of house' service is in performing re-analysis of the raw data behind the publication. Stats is hard and unfortunately it's all too easy to make a bit of a hash out of it. Unfortunately the current peer review process doesn't always address this adequately - either because the reviewers aren't neccessarily any better at statistics themselves or the data as presented has been stepped through processing that may add unexpected bias. Having a career statistician run a leery eye over the analysis in the orginal Wakefield paper certainly wouldn't have hurt.
Stop making life decisions based on limited evidence.
What we really need to know is why it didn't need flight software BEFORE now?! Obviously it isn't really on Mars... if 'Mars' even exists. Lizards all the way down I tell you! LIZARDS!!
A month? The Ludum Dare does them in 48 hours.
They're not banning it, they're regulating it.
I'd absolutely condone last-ditch treatment for individuals but then that's often done anyway - in a controlled and reportable manner. In that way we can learn something from the outcome and improve the treatment in the future so everyone benefits.
This is about preventing organisations using stem cells as the latest snake oil cure-all while circumventing regulation on a 'oh but it's just your own cells so it's not a medical procedure' which is patently false.
It's either an effective medical procedure and needs regulating, or isn't and they're guilty of false advertising.
Or - back in reality - it would stop desperate patients/relatives being fleeced by 'doctors' promising results from unproven techniques. I assume these kind doctors are not offering a 'no fix no fee' deal?
As for "it shouldn't be that bad" taking cells from one place and putting them somewhere else. Hello, cancer? Endometriosis?
This is the same dodgy reasoning that says 'natural' remedies are better because they're 'natural' and so are we... politely ignoring that what you're putting into yourself has been processed and altered (dried, heated, distilled). Likewise for stem cell treatments: Transplantation requires a lot more than sucking them out and putting them back in - not least of all sorting and phenotyping. All cells grown in culture change and over time and most tend towards a cancer-like phenotypes absent control of their environment. It's forbidden to work on your own cells in a lab for this very reason: if you inadvertently transform the cells in vitro then self-innoculate they will not be killed (*effectively).
Seems exactly like the kind of thing where you'd want someone to know what they're doing.
No. The mass opinion is usually right. You hear more about it being wrong because its a noteworthy event.
Don't make me hit you with the selection bias cluestick.
You're describing the Inquisitorial system of justice as practised in such exotic locations as France (and most of the world using civil as opposed to common law).
Great news! I hate queuing. And diabetes.
Microwaves cook 'inside out' at the cellular level. That is they heat the water which in turn cooks the yummy protein and carbohydrate.
Cook a chicken fillet and the outside is most definitely cooked before the inside presumably because the microwaves have to get through the water nearer the surface to reach the middle. As the outside of the meat dries they can penetrate further - in much the same way as heat in an conventional oven.
Same in the UK - although they don't shout about it enough in my opinion, they have started doing testing in student bars etc. which is great move. I've been checked regularly over the past few years and make a point of being open about it. Sure you get the standard 'ha ha you dirty bastard' response to begin with. But who is dirtier? It's the equivalent of being proud for never washing your hands.
The frustrating thing is these are all absolutely preventable diseases. The religious anti-sex brigade are causing considerable pain and suffering -how moral- by perpetuating the lie that "sex is bad m'kay" and that where you stick your bits is somehow something to be ashamed of - not to mention someone else's business.
I'll calm down now.
This is exactly it.
Even if you agree with the premise being pushed here it doesn't mean "religion is good for us". All that is proved is that religion is a side effect of other behaviours that are "good for us" and that on balance religion is not deleterious enough to counterbalance the good that is done.
As in your bias/racism point our ability to identify this means that we now have the ability to have one without the other. We have no obligation to pander to evolutionary hangovers.
And people wearing headphones.
I frequently walk to work with music in my ears and sometimes (if its a good tune or I need waking up) quite loud. So I make a point of looking both ways - even against the traffic (emergency vehicles) - when approaching crossings and looking again as I step out.
I've pulled someone back from a pedestrian crossing who stepped out on green into an oncoming police car - blaring sirens/lights skidding around a blind corner. You need to look and keep looking.
I'm not sure what the solution is for those with poor eyesight. Everyone else (and the environment) suffering noise pollution seems like a poor solution. A higher frequency - and quieter - travelling shorter distances may be a nice compromise. I'll be honest, I was looking forward to not hearing the perpetual background hum.