Came here to say exactly this. We cannot afford to blindly accept EULAs anymore. Not that anyone wants to read 32 pages of legalese for every 1,000-lines of code app that comes along, but we now have to continuously monitor EULAs and TOSs for any deviation. And if we don't like them, and don't want to accept, are we honestly going to find alternatives with user-friendly licenses?
It's like switching banks or cable companies, but worse. It can be such a pain in the ass to switch, but how are you going to convince your friends to all switch with you? At least with banks you can give someone a check or wire money without them being a member of the same bank.
Don't know that you'll even return to read my response, but perhaps...
I agree that things shouldn't be banned for no good reason. A lot of airports have designated smoking rooms, which should be great for smokers. I've been to a bar that had a courtyard that was fully enclosed and sealed off so that smokers could enjoy it. Besides the front, it was the only place with windows, so certainly tempting for non-smokers to congregate there as well. Should you have a designated, ventilated, smoking room inside? Should you have a comfortable area outside (that is far enough from the building and 4 season)? I agree with you that it is silly that you have to hang out in a parking lot.
I don't think such measures should be used to persuade smokers to quit; it's an individual's choice. Some will argue that it increases healthcare costs for everyone, but so do many other vices. Where do you draw the line?
With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?
Nick was inspired by one of my favorite Jackie Chan flicks, not two of my pastimes rolled into one.
Strawman: I'm not advocating for a ban on e-cigs in public. I only ask e-cig users not to vape in places where smoking is banned.
False equivalence: If the mere act of drinking was harmful to others, then it would be equivalent and I'd certainly have no basis to oppose bans in restaurants and airplanes. (I'm indifferent that public drinking is not allowed in most places.)
I am always amazed by the people "smoking" e-cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed. I've seen people use them in restaurants where smoking is prohibited, inside a school, and I even saw someone use one on an airplane.
Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful. Stop using them in places where smoking is banned. Thank you.
Calorie deficit trumps exercise, strictly for weight loss. (Exercise has obviously has other benefits.)
For example, your 500 calorie/day deficit results in a 3,500 calories deficit in one week to lose one pound. For a 200-lb individual, it takes about 3,500 calories to run a marathon. Want to lose ten pounds? Diet for 10 weeks, or run 10 marathons.* Your choice.
(It's not that simple, since your body doesn't just tap into fat reserves unconditionally. Your body will also adjust your metabolism based on changes to caloric intake. But at a crude level this isn't far off.)
He wasn't extradited for his claim about Hillary's server. He was extradited for:
In the United States, Lazar is charged in a nine-count indictment with three counts of wire fraud, three counts of gaining unauthorized access to protected computers, and one count each of aggravated identity theft, cyberstalking and obstruction of justice.... Lazar hacked into the email and social media accounts of high-profile victims, including a family member of two former U.S. presidents, a former U.S. Cabinet member, a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former presidential advisor. After gaining unauthorized access to their accounts, Lazar publicly released his victims’ private email correspondence, medical and financial information and personal photographs. The indictment also alleges that in July 2013 and August 2013, Lazar impersonated a victim after compromising the victim’s account.
Check the timeline. He claimed to have hacked Hillary's server in May. The DOJ press release above is dated April 1, meaning he was already extradited before making the claim. So they still have a number of charges to investigate.
While a lot of Slashdotters might see the summary and say, "Duh!", it is a largely unexplored area of biology. Since "Biology" literally means "the study of life", it shouldn't be surprising that not too much time is spent on what happens after death.
A simple explanation for some of the changes in gene expression probably relates to the fact that the organs are no longer working together to keep the organism alive. Furthermore, cells within an organism are in competition for the increasingly scarce resources (oxygen since lungs aren't inhaling, heart isn't circulating blood, and nutrition as well), and activate stress genes.
As for the genes involved in cancer, well, a simplified view of a cancerous cell is a cell that has lost it's ability to communicate with it's neighbors. Not something that is needed if you are going to compete with them.
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but other Slashdotters have pointed out a few things that seem individually seem plausible, and paint an interesting picture. EU politics is not my expertise, and I would be delighted if someone more learned refuted this:
- UKIP et al. don't really want to leave, but want to appeal to their base and jockey for power - Cameron holds the referendum to placate the conservatives and possibly win favor, believing it won't go the way of "exit" - The vote results in "exit" winning - Cameron and Exit leaders discuss "how do we stop this?" - A deal is struck: Exit leaders/conservatives will take the heat for the UK not leaving the EU, despite the referendum, but want the PM spot - Cameron resigns before triggering Article 50 - Exit leaders/conservatives rise to power and win the PM spot, but do not invoke Article 50 - Half the populace is pissed, but about half the people are happy with not leaving - The whole thing blows over and the populace forgets, distracted by bread and circuses
One hurdle that would need to be overcome is the speed at which your quantum wave function were manipulated. Every living cell of your body contains thousands of enzymes catalyzing hundreds, thousands, or even millions of reactions per second. Failure to suspend, or nearly suspend, molecular and atomic motion prior to manipulating the quantum wave function would result in massive cellular disruption, not just in enzymatic activity, but structurally, as proteins would undergo conformational changes if a binding partner were not present. Basically, the quantum wave function of each particle would probably need to be manipulated in synchrony.
Now, if that was implied in your post, then carry on. IANAQP, but I was a biologist.
I know it is fashionable not to RTFA, but the Justice Department named this operation "Triple Lindy", the infamous dive Rodney Dangerfield's character performed in "Back to School".:)
You clearly don't work in medicine, healthcare, the pharma industry, or even understand how drugs work. I also suspect that you've had very basic instruction in biology. I get tired of hearing "pharma companies only make drugs that address symptoms so they can keep selling you drugs." I think you are conflating "disease treatment" and "cure". Most drugs are disease treatments, since permanent cures are not possible (at this time) for the vast majority of diseases. But, e.g., there were recent market approvals of 3 actual cures for hepatitis C.
Drugs are developed to have a mechanism of action that directly addresses underlying disease. When it costs in excess of $1 billion and 10 years to bring a drug to market, you don't waste time on something that you have no idea how it works. Never mind that FDA and every other health regulatory agency in the world frowns upon pharma companies saying "we have no idea how it works, but it does, so just approve it." You make sure you are targeting the molecular and cellular causes of the disease. The drugs drastically reduce the severity of the disease. This manifests in a reduction in symptoms. The average person sees it as "the drugs only treat symptoms, I still have the disease", but what is actually happening is the drug is treating the disease and reducing its severity and a reduction or disappearance of symptoms is really just a side effect of treating the disease.
TL;DR: "Treatment" and "cure" are not the same, and "cure" is often not possible at this time. So should pharma companies not bother?
Steve Buscemi did an interview about a location shoot at a prison. He remarked that the warden even gave permission for some of the inmates to be extras. Steve said that the prisoners were all excited to meet him and they all told him that Con Air was there favorite movie, Garland Greene was their favorite character, and that Con Air was shown fairly often on movie night. He expressed his disbelief that they'd ever show that in a prison.
In a surprising number of countries, not knowing how to drive is no hindrance to obtaining a driver’s license or getting behind the wheel. In Nigeria, the Federal Road Safety Commission only recently made it compulsory for new drivers to take driving lessons and pass a test before obtaining a license; in the past you could simply buy a license.
Exactly. If a life saving drug can only have 20 years of patent protection, why would a mashup novel of Jane Austen and zombie pulp be entitled to 70+ years of copyright protection? Is it because the life saving drug is essential to the general well-being of society and the novel is not? If so, then the novel does not need such lengthy protection since it clearly is not as important.
*I realize we are comparing patents and copyright, but I don't see a reason not to look broadly when determining what a reasonable length of protection is for a creation, whether a technological invention or a created work.
This has been possible for decades. Short and simplified answer to "how":
1. Put the gene of interest (e.g., Bea's variant) into mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) in place of the "normal" (wild type) allele.* 2. Make a female mouse super-ovulate and harvest eggs. 3. Transfer nucleus of engineered mESCs into denucleated eggs. 4. Allow re-nucleated eggs to undergo initial cleavage events in vitro. (These are effectively clones, but with one genetic change.) 5. Take best developing clones and implant into pseudo-pregnant female, ala IVF. 6. Profit!
*In the case of a knock-in (adding or replacing a gene), you need to use vectors that will insert in place of an existing "normal" gene, "knocking in" a mutant or variant. In the case of a knock out, you can either make a copy that doesn't transcribe into mRNA or just use the flanking DNA sequences without the gene you want to remove.
The "anti-science, reactionary attitude" must be a part of human nature. Early examples include Icarus, Prometheus, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, etc. We seems to love cautionary tales, and somehow an achievement or advancement based on science or engineering (sometimes indistinguishable from magic) is at the heart of many of them. They stem from asking, "What if someone could do this, or have this power?" For some reason, thoughts turn negative such that the outcome must be bad, because it can't always be good. Right?
As for the the heroes relying more on strength than intellect, that is interesting. Perhaps nerds like them because they think, "I am already smart, so if I were strong as well I'd be a real hero." Or maybe, they think about how bigger stronger bullies use strength, against which their intellect usually does little good, and project that in a role-reversing fashion.
Anyway, you raise interesting points about archetypes in literature spanning millenia.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up.
Came here to say exactly this. We cannot afford to blindly accept EULAs anymore. Not that anyone wants to read 32 pages of legalese for every 1,000-lines of code app that comes along, but we now have to continuously monitor EULAs and TOSs for any deviation. And if we don't like them, and don't want to accept, are we honestly going to find alternatives with user-friendly licenses?
It's like switching banks or cable companies, but worse. It can be such a pain in the ass to switch, but how are you going to convince your friends to all switch with you? At least with banks you can give someone a check or wire money without them being a member of the same bank.
Two words: Dwarf Fortress.
Nobody makes them like that, except Tarn Adams.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07...
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/1...
It helps if there is a working link in TFS.
I added a Monster coaxial cable to my Comcast Wi-Fi receiver and now I have the fastest Wi-Fi! The internet really comes alive!
Take that Google Fiber!
Don't know that you'll even return to read my response, but perhaps...
I agree that things shouldn't be banned for no good reason. A lot of airports have designated smoking rooms, which should be great for smokers. I've been to a bar that had a courtyard that was fully enclosed and sealed off so that smokers could enjoy it. Besides the front, it was the only place with windows, so certainly tempting for non-smokers to congregate there as well. Should you have a designated, ventilated, smoking room inside? Should you have a comfortable area outside (that is far enough from the building and 4 season)? I agree with you that it is silly that you have to hang out in a parking lot.
I don't think such measures should be used to persuade smokers to quit; it's an individual's choice. Some will argue that it increases healthcare costs for everyone, but so do many other vices. Where do you draw the line?
With a nick like this I have to ask: Pissed that they banned public drinking but public smoking is still ok?
Nick was inspired by one of my favorite Jackie Chan flicks, not two of my pastimes rolled into one.
Strawman: I'm not advocating for a ban on e-cigs in public. I only ask e-cig users not to vape in places where smoking is banned.
False equivalence: If the mere act of drinking was harmful to others, then it would be equivalent and I'd certainly have no basis to oppose bans in restaurants and airplanes. (I'm indifferent that public drinking is not allowed in most places.)
I am always amazed by the people "smoking" e-cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed. I've seen people use them in restaurants where smoking is prohibited, inside a school, and I even saw someone use one on an airplane.
Just because it doesn't create smoke like a conventional cigarette doesn't mean that the vapors and your exhalations aren't harmful. Stop using them in places where smoking is banned. Thank you.
Where is "Canadean" stuff made?
In Canadea, of course!
Calorie deficit trumps exercise, strictly for weight loss. (Exercise has obviously has other benefits.)
For example, your 500 calorie/day deficit results in a 3,500 calories deficit in one week to lose one pound. For a 200-lb individual, it takes about 3,500 calories to run a marathon. Want to lose ten pounds? Diet for 10 weeks, or run 10 marathons.* Your choice.
(It's not that simple, since your body doesn't just tap into fat reserves unconditionally. Your body will also adjust your metabolism based on changes to caloric intake. But at a crude level this isn't far off.)
He wasn't extradited for his claim about Hillary's server. He was extradited for:
In the United States, Lazar is charged in a nine-count indictment with three counts of wire fraud, three counts of gaining unauthorized access to protected computers, and one count each of aggravated identity theft, cyberstalking and obstruction of justice. ... Lazar hacked into the email and social media accounts of high-profile victims, including a family member of two former U.S. presidents, a former U.S. Cabinet member, a former member of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former presidential advisor. After gaining unauthorized access to their accounts, Lazar publicly released his victims’ private email correspondence, medical and financial information and personal photographs. The indictment also alleges that in July 2013 and August 2013, Lazar impersonated a victim after compromising the victim’s account.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr...
Check the timeline. He claimed to have hacked Hillary's server in May. The DOJ press release above is dated April 1, meaning he was already extradited before making the claim. So they still have a number of charges to investigate.
You know, I got excited that there was evidence for neutrinos interacting with food. It boggled my mind, so I followed your link.
***SPOILER***
That is a very different use of the word "flavor" than I am used to. Great disappointment will be my companion for the next few minutes.
While a lot of Slashdotters might see the summary and say, "Duh!", it is a largely unexplored area of biology. Since "Biology" literally means "the study of life", it shouldn't be surprising that not too much time is spent on what happens after death.
A simple explanation for some of the changes in gene expression probably relates to the fact that the organs are no longer working together to keep the organism alive. Furthermore, cells within an organism are in competition for the increasingly scarce resources (oxygen since lungs aren't inhaling, heart isn't circulating blood, and nutrition as well), and activate stress genes.
As for the genes involved in cancer, well, a simplified view of a cancerous cell is a cell that has lost it's ability to communicate with it's neighbors. Not something that is needed if you are going to compete with them.
Here is the pre-print article:
http://www.biorxiv.org/content...
I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but other Slashdotters have pointed out a few things that seem individually seem plausible, and paint an interesting picture. EU politics is not my expertise, and I would be delighted if someone more learned refuted this:
- UKIP et al. don't really want to leave, but want to appeal to their base and jockey for power
- Cameron holds the referendum to placate the conservatives and possibly win favor, believing it won't go the way of "exit"
- The vote results in "exit" winning
- Cameron and Exit leaders discuss "how do we stop this?"
- A deal is struck: Exit leaders/conservatives will take the heat for the UK not leaving the EU, despite the referendum, but want the PM spot
- Cameron resigns before triggering Article 50
- Exit leaders/conservatives rise to power and win the PM spot, but do not invoke Article 50
- Half the populace is pissed, but about half the people are happy with not leaving
- The whole thing blows over and the populace forgets, distracted by bread and circuses
One hurdle that would need to be overcome is the speed at which your quantum wave function were manipulated. Every living cell of your body contains thousands of enzymes catalyzing hundreds, thousands, or even millions of reactions per second. Failure to suspend, or nearly suspend, molecular and atomic motion prior to manipulating the quantum wave function would result in massive cellular disruption, not just in enzymatic activity, but structurally, as proteins would undergo conformational changes if a binding partner were not present. Basically, the quantum wave function of each particle would probably need to be manipulated in synchrony.
Now, if that was implied in your post, then carry on. IANAQP, but I was a biologist.
I know it is fashionable not to RTFA, but the Justice Department named this operation "Triple Lindy", the infamous dive Rodney Dangerfield's character performed in "Back to School". :)
You clearly don't work in medicine, healthcare, the pharma industry, or even understand how drugs work. I also suspect that you've had very basic instruction in biology. I get tired of hearing "pharma companies only make drugs that address symptoms so they can keep selling you drugs." I think you are conflating "disease treatment" and "cure". Most drugs are disease treatments, since permanent cures are not possible (at this time) for the vast majority of diseases. But, e.g., there were recent market approvals of 3 actual cures for hepatitis C.
Drugs are developed to have a mechanism of action that directly addresses underlying disease. When it costs in excess of $1 billion and 10 years to bring a drug to market, you don't waste time on something that you have no idea how it works. Never mind that FDA and every other health regulatory agency in the world frowns upon pharma companies saying "we have no idea how it works, but it does, so just approve it." You make sure you are targeting the molecular and cellular causes of the disease. The drugs drastically reduce the severity of the disease. This manifests in a reduction in symptoms. The average person sees it as "the drugs only treat symptoms, I still have the disease", but what is actually happening is the drug is treating the disease and reducing its severity and a reduction or disappearance of symptoms is really just a side effect of treating the disease.
TL;DR: "Treatment" and "cure" are not the same, and "cure" is often not possible at this time. So should pharma companies not bother?
It's about time Japan started cutting funding to the Agriculture Ministry to increase funding to the Gundam Ministry.
Steve Buscemi did an interview about a location shoot at a prison. He remarked that the warden even gave permission for some of the inmates to be extras. Steve said that the prisoners were all excited to meet him and they all told him that Con Air was there favorite movie, Garland Greene was their favorite character, and that Con Air was shown fairly often on movie night. He expressed his disbelief that they'd ever show that in a prison.
According to the TFA, the prize was cancelled because advances in technology have enabled teams to actually win. Hmm...
1. Hold contest to motivate scientists to achieve technological leaps
2. Cancel contest when winning is inevitable
3. Profit!
From TFA:
In a surprising number of countries, not knowing how to drive is no hindrance to obtaining a driver’s license or getting behind the wheel. In Nigeria, the Federal Road Safety Commission only recently made it compulsory for new drivers to take driving lessons and pass a test before obtaining a license; in the past you could simply buy a license.
The free market at work!
Exactly. If a life saving drug can only have 20 years of patent protection, why would a mashup novel of Jane Austen and zombie pulp be entitled to 70+ years of copyright protection? Is it because the life saving drug is essential to the general well-being of society and the novel is not? If so, then the novel does not need such lengthy protection since it clearly is not as important.
*I realize we are comparing patents and copyright, but I don't see a reason not to look broadly when determining what a reasonable length of protection is for a creation, whether a technological invention or a created work.
It bombed because William Randolph Hearst, who Kane was based on, was irate over the movie. He was able to keep it out of a large number of theaters.
Source: The Criterion Collection edition of Citizen Kane has an amazing documentary about the movie.
This has been possible for decades. Short and simplified answer to "how":
1. Put the gene of interest (e.g., Bea's variant) into mouse embryonic stem cells (mESCs) in place of the "normal" (wild type) allele.*
2. Make a female mouse super-ovulate and harvest eggs.
3. Transfer nucleus of engineered mESCs into denucleated eggs.
4. Allow re-nucleated eggs to undergo initial cleavage events in vitro. (These are effectively clones, but with one genetic change.)
5. Take best developing clones and implant into pseudo-pregnant female, ala IVF.
6. Profit!
*In the case of a knock-in (adding or replacing a gene), you need to use vectors that will insert in place of an existing "normal" gene, "knocking in" a mutant or variant. In the case of a knock out, you can either make a copy that doesn't transcribe into mRNA or just use the flanking DNA sequences without the gene you want to remove.
The "anti-science, reactionary attitude" must be a part of human nature. Early examples include Icarus, Prometheus, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, etc. We seems to love cautionary tales, and somehow an achievement or advancement based on science or engineering (sometimes indistinguishable from magic) is at the heart of many of them. They stem from asking, "What if someone could do this, or have this power?" For some reason, thoughts turn negative such that the outcome must be bad, because it can't always be good. Right?
As for the the heroes relying more on strength than intellect, that is interesting. Perhaps nerds like them because they think, "I am already smart, so if I were strong as well I'd be a real hero." Or maybe, they think about how bigger stronger bullies use strength, against which their intellect usually does little good, and project that in a role-reversing fashion.
Anyway, you raise interesting points about archetypes in literature spanning millenia.