Maybe someone more knowledgable about forensic genetics can help me here, but my understanding was that at the current level of sophistication, the main value of genetic fingerprinting (which is less specific than full sequencing, but also more robust in the face of contamination, degradation, etc.) was in excluding known suspects (i.e., ruling out the butler) rather than in identifying suspects prospectively (which would be the main reason to set up a database like this). In a country the size of the UK, wouldn't this produce false positives that could be used to argue against the validity of the system?
You're still confused. No scientist (or rational supporter of this bill) is arguing that everyone MUST accept the current neo-Darwinian synthesis--but science is not story hour. If a teacher wants to present an alternative theory, then it had better be thoroughly supported by readily available scientific evidence. Not innuendo, not half-truths, but real data to support the position, whether it's creationism, ID, or Pastafarianism. This hasn't happened yet; until it does, why would you tolerate the teaching of 'alternative biology' any more than you'd tolerate the teaching of 'alternative algebra?'
Honestly, if you buy into the Ben Stein viewpoint that Evil Monolithic Big Science is just out to crush the purehearted, openminded seekers of truth, then you really don't understand the issue. Read some Ken Miller if you want an evenhanded explanation.
See, you're confused. If science had replaced religion, we wouldn't have people arguing about intelligent design right now, because the reigning neo-Darwinist authorities would have burned them alive as heretics. Instead, IDers are free to conduct whatever research they want to try to support their claims--the fact that they've got no evidence whatsoever is not because some Darwinian Inquistion has suppressed it, but because their ideas are substantially without merit. NOTHING makes your name in science like overthrowing the prevailing wisdom (assuming you've got the data to back it up).
Tell me, what part of the Bible, or Talmud, or Koran says, "all this is subject to revision on the basis of new findings." None, because they all purport to be the One Source of Universal Truth. This kind of arrogance is staggering--I don't think even the most unhinged scientist would claim a perfect understanding of anything in nature. Science may at times become dogmatic, but that's not a failure of the concept, it's a failure of the human beings employing it.
How can you even call them science? They make untestable affirmative statements about the universe and justify it by claiming flaws in the predominant model. Michael Behe is one of those intelligent design proponents who's always trying to do 'experiments' to prove that evolution is impossible, but in the end he's always forced to concede that natural processes explain the phenomenon very well, without the need for an invisible sky daddy to help. So the hell with calling it science--pseudoscience at best.
Whoa, so you mean, you, a person of religious faith, were engaged in an argument despite a basic ignorance of the concept involved? WELL SHUCKS,THAT'S A NEW ONE ON ME!
One thing that 'Neverwhere' probably has counted against it is that it was originally written as a script, and then expanded to a novel. I think my favorite of his stuff thus far has been 'Stardust,' but based on your recommendation, maybe I'll take a crack at 'Anansi Boys' next time I'm at the library. Thanks.
I think you hit the nail on the head. With 'Neverwhere' there was a clear plot, and with each new event there was a sense of progressing toward a conclusion. 'American Gods' felt a lot more meandering--the scenery was nice, but the trip went in circles.
"I, for one, think facebook exists to serve my purposes not their own. They obviously forgot that somewhere along the way."
Is it really possible to be that naive, or are you just pulling my leg? Take an economics class and think some more about this. Here's a little Adam Smith to help you along: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Attention Muslims: no one gives shit about the rules your fruity little cult chooses to embrace, so please stop acting as though we ought to.
Attention all other religious folks: likewise.
Maybe when you folks grow up a little and are no longer so arrogant as to believe yourselves to be the sole custodians of the ultimate truths of the universe, we'll have more to talk about. Until then, go screw.
Actually, if the doc in question is the medical monitor in a clinical trial and he screws up, then yes, he can kill large numbers of people all at once. Although a single point of failure would never be enough to put an unsafe drug on the market, bad medical decision making has led to plenty of misery associated with improper drug approvals and prescribing. Granted, it's generally not as dramatic as a bridge collapsing or a nuclear plant melthing down....
They'll be easy targets, too, because while everyone else is running their asses off in blind panic, they'll be the ones stumbling around with a camcorder jammed to their faces to make sure they capture every harrowing moment.
Seriously, dude, you're climbing across the roof of a collapsing building--put the camera away.
So let's see, three cables in three days...that puts the monster in Manhattan by what, next Thursday, give or take a few isolated fishing vessels between here and there? Better charge up those handicams, kids!
I didn't state it as explicitly as you did, but you'll note in my last post I mentioned the possibility of 'alternate transactions' whereby you could reward the band for their creation without putting your money into the coffers of the label.
Now, again with the market analogy, just as you're free to buy or not buy, a band is free to sign with a label or remain independent. If they choose to sign and take advantage of the access and promotion a label allows them, then they're obligated to provide the assorted businessfolk with a cut of the revenue. If they start selling directly to you (and cutting out the middlemen) then it's still stealing, but on the part of the band. I wouldn't classify that as piracy, because after all, you, the consumer, are still paying for the goods you're receiving.
I don't really know what to make of Trent Reznor. I assume he's under a contract that would prevent him from giving his music away free, but even if he wasn't, I suspect the only reason he'd be willing to do so is because he's already got plenty of money. Unless you're a truly self-sacrificing musician, the only reason you should want to give your stuff away for free is if you think it will get more people to buy more later. Since Trent's got that covered, and a major fanbase to boot, he can afford to be idealistic.
Thinking about this in terms of market forces is in no way an oversimplification, because it's obvious that people attribute some value to the intangible concept of 'supporting the band' in addition to the value they derive from having access to the media. Take Radiohead's recent album release, for example. Some people obviously felt that the band deserved something for their work, and so they paid for the download when they were not compelled to. So to the extent that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, market forces are perfectly adequate to describe the situation.
Secondly, without delving into the factors underlying the music business (bands sign away their earnings in exchange for greater access and promotion rights, etc.), the fact is that you know when you purchase a CD that parties other than the band are taking a cut. If this bothers you, you're free to not buy the disc, or to seek some other way of buying the media without paying the middleman. But I fail to see how this would justify pirating music: either you're willing to pay for the goods (and support the band) despite the lousy distribution of the wealth, or you're not. Unless the band tells you to copy their stuff around, you can't argue that piracy is intended to do anything other than provide you with free stuff.
Copyright law exists for the benefit of society--specifically, because it gives creators a reason to create and make their material available. That incentive generally, in our capitalist system, means money. So making a band rich may not be the goal of copyright law, but it's a reasonable intermediate outcome.
Secondly, I don't disagree that there are many social problems associated with a disparity in wealth, but again, I think it's ultimately the consumer's choice. If fans didn't buy tickets to baseball games, players wouldn't be able to demand million dollar contracts. If you think there ought to be some kind of regulatory framework that prevents people from paying for the things they want to read/see/listen to, then that's a much larger issue than copyright law by itself. Make sense?
I would also say that when employees in this industry make over a million dollars a year, they are being overcompensated and there must be some artificial reason why which will eventually be flattened.
I don't really understand what you're saying here. You seem to acknowledge that some period of copyright protection should exist--this, of course, is nothing but an artificial monopoly, which inflates the price above the marginal cost of production (in this case, next to nothing) so that the producer can make a buck and thus has an incentive to make more stuff in the future.
Now, given that the selling price is determined monopolistically, that doesn't force anybody to buy the product. If you think a new album isn't worth the $20 it sells for, don't buy it. If enough people feel likewise, the artist (or more accurately, his label) will realize they need to lower prices in order to do business. On the other hand, if a band comes out with an album selling at $x and people are willing to pay it, then why doesn't that band deserve the profit, however exhorbitant it may be? (And however unnecessary you might consider the other players, e.g., producers, label execs, etc., the fact is that the band entered into an agreement with them, so it shouldn't be your concern what they make, either).
Adding in a new base wouldn't produce a new amino acid, certainly, I'm just suggesting that depending on the steric factors, the interaction might be permissive enough to allow some other tRNA to match up to one of these Franken-codons. The degeneracy of the genetic code shows plenty of flexibility, particularly toward the third base in a codon.
But like I said, I'm no expert; if you've looked at the paper, you probably know more about it than I do.;)
Not necessarily. Depending on structure of these new bases, the existing tRNA hardware may be permissive enough to allow them, although what the odds of that are, I couldn't guess.
I'm not sure if it's awesome or awesomely disturbing that you've just cribbed parenting advice from the movie 'Ronin.' Bold move, in any case. I can't wait to tell my kids that they talk a good game in the living room, but they're weak when they put their spikes on.
I'm most definitely anti-religion, no question, but why is it that when I mock religion, I'm a 'bigot' but when a religious person tries to convert me, or tells me how I'll burn in hell (in college an evangelical girl once said she could "smell Satan's brimstone" on me), they're just being devout?
Oh, wait, because religion is a sweet, sensual melding of ancient superstition and modern jackassery, that's why.
Incidentally, I don't really claim that religion alone holds back scientific progress, but there are plenty of reasons to bash it regardless.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe someone more knowledgable about forensic genetics can help me here, but my understanding was that at the current level of sophistication, the main value of genetic fingerprinting (which is less specific than full sequencing, but also more robust in the face of contamination, degradation, etc.) was in excluding known suspects (i.e., ruling out the butler) rather than in identifying suspects prospectively (which would be the main reason to set up a database like this). In a country the size of the UK, wouldn't this produce false positives that could be used to argue against the validity of the system?
So, wait...it's black, and it rolls around after dark in a bad part of town?
How long do you think it will be before it gets stopped in a 'random check' and tasered for 'resisting and officer?'
You're still confused. No scientist (or rational supporter of this bill) is arguing that everyone MUST accept the current neo-Darwinian synthesis--but science is not story hour. If a teacher wants to present an alternative theory, then it had better be thoroughly supported by readily available scientific evidence. Not innuendo, not half-truths, but real data to support the position, whether it's creationism, ID, or Pastafarianism. This hasn't happened yet; until it does, why would you tolerate the teaching of 'alternative biology' any more than you'd tolerate the teaching of 'alternative algebra?'
Honestly, if you buy into the Ben Stein viewpoint that Evil Monolithic Big Science is just out to crush the purehearted, openminded seekers of truth, then you really don't understand the issue. Read some Ken Miller if you want an evenhanded explanation.
See, you're confused. If science had replaced religion, we wouldn't have people arguing about intelligent design right now, because the reigning neo-Darwinist authorities would have burned them alive as heretics. Instead, IDers are free to conduct whatever research they want to try to support their claims--the fact that they've got no evidence whatsoever is not because some Darwinian Inquistion has suppressed it, but because their ideas are substantially without merit. NOTHING makes your name in science like overthrowing the prevailing wisdom (assuming you've got the data to back it up). Tell me, what part of the Bible, or Talmud, or Koran says, "all this is subject to revision on the basis of new findings." None, because they all purport to be the One Source of Universal Truth. This kind of arrogance is staggering--I don't think even the most unhinged scientist would claim a perfect understanding of anything in nature. Science may at times become dogmatic, but that's not a failure of the concept, it's a failure of the human beings employing it.
How can you even call them science? They make untestable affirmative statements about the universe and justify it by claiming flaws in the predominant model. Michael Behe is one of those intelligent design proponents who's always trying to do 'experiments' to prove that evolution is impossible, but in the end he's always forced to concede that natural processes explain the phenomenon very well, without the need for an invisible sky daddy to help. So the hell with calling it science--pseudoscience at best.
Whoa, so you mean, you, a person of religious faith, were engaged in an argument despite a basic ignorance of the concept involved? WELL SHUCKS,THAT'S A NEW ONE ON ME!
One thing that 'Neverwhere' probably has counted against it is that it was originally written as a script, and then expanded to a novel. I think my favorite of his stuff thus far has been 'Stardust,' but based on your recommendation, maybe I'll take a crack at 'Anansi Boys' next time I'm at the library. Thanks.
I think you hit the nail on the head. With 'Neverwhere' there was a clear plot, and with each new event there was a sense of progressing toward a conclusion. 'American Gods' felt a lot more meandering--the scenery was nice, but the trip went in circles.
It's not hard to keep the red shirts clean--people don't seem to wear them very long.
"I, for one, think facebook exists to serve my purposes not their own. They obviously forgot that somewhere along the way."
Is it really possible to be that naive, or are you just pulling my leg? Take an economics class and think some more about this. Here's a little Adam Smith to help you along: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Attention Muslims: no one gives shit about the rules your fruity little cult chooses to embrace, so please stop acting as though we ought to.
Attention all other religious folks: likewise.
Maybe when you folks grow up a little and are no longer so arrogant as to believe yourselves to be the sole custodians of the ultimate truths of the universe, we'll have more to talk about. Until then, go screw.
Actually, if the doc in question is the medical monitor in a clinical trial and he screws up, then yes, he can kill large numbers of people all at once. Although a single point of failure would never be enough to put an unsafe drug on the market, bad medical decision making has led to plenty of misery associated with improper drug approvals and prescribing. Granted, it's generally not as dramatic as a bridge collapsing or a nuclear plant melthing down....
They'll be easy targets, too, because while everyone else is running their asses off in blind panic, they'll be the ones stumbling around with a camcorder jammed to their faces to make sure they capture every harrowing moment.
Seriously, dude, you're climbing across the roof of a collapsing building--put the camera away.
So let's see, three cables in three days...that puts the monster in Manhattan by what, next Thursday, give or take a few isolated fishing vessels between here and there? Better charge up those handicams, kids!
I didn't state it as explicitly as you did, but you'll note in my last post I mentioned the possibility of 'alternate transactions' whereby you could reward the band for their creation without putting your money into the coffers of the label.
Now, again with the market analogy, just as you're free to buy or not buy, a band is free to sign with a label or remain independent. If they choose to sign and take advantage of the access and promotion a label allows them, then they're obligated to provide the assorted businessfolk with a cut of the revenue. If they start selling directly to you (and cutting out the middlemen) then it's still stealing, but on the part of the band. I wouldn't classify that as piracy, because after all, you, the consumer, are still paying for the goods you're receiving.
I don't really know what to make of Trent Reznor. I assume he's under a contract that would prevent him from giving his music away free, but even if he wasn't, I suspect the only reason he'd be willing to do so is because he's already got plenty of money. Unless you're a truly self-sacrificing musician, the only reason you should want to give your stuff away for free is if you think it will get more people to buy more later. Since Trent's got that covered, and a major fanbase to boot, he can afford to be idealistic.
Thinking about this in terms of market forces is in no way an oversimplification, because it's obvious that people attribute some value to the intangible concept of 'supporting the band' in addition to the value they derive from having access to the media. Take Radiohead's recent album release, for example. Some people obviously felt that the band deserved something for their work, and so they paid for the download when they were not compelled to. So to the extent that you're willing to put your money where your mouth is, market forces are perfectly adequate to describe the situation.
Secondly, without delving into the factors underlying the music business (bands sign away their earnings in exchange for greater access and promotion rights, etc.), the fact is that you know when you purchase a CD that parties other than the band are taking a cut. If this bothers you, you're free to not buy the disc, or to seek some other way of buying the media without paying the middleman. But I fail to see how this would justify pirating music: either you're willing to pay for the goods (and support the band) despite the lousy distribution of the wealth, or you're not. Unless the band tells you to copy their stuff around, you can't argue that piracy is intended to do anything other than provide you with free stuff.
Copyright law exists for the benefit of society--specifically, because it gives creators a reason to create and make their material available. That incentive generally, in our capitalist system, means money. So making a band rich may not be the goal of copyright law, but it's a reasonable intermediate outcome.
Secondly, I don't disagree that there are many social problems associated with a disparity in wealth, but again, I think it's ultimately the consumer's choice. If fans didn't buy tickets to baseball games, players wouldn't be able to demand million dollar contracts. If you think there ought to be some kind of regulatory framework that prevents people from paying for the things they want to read/see/listen to, then that's a much larger issue than copyright law by itself. Make sense?
Now, given that the selling price is determined monopolistically, that doesn't force anybody to buy the product. If you think a new album isn't worth the $20 it sells for, don't buy it. If enough people feel likewise, the artist (or more accurately, his label) will realize they need to lower prices in order to do business. On the other hand, if a band comes out with an album selling at $x and people are willing to pay it, then why doesn't that band deserve the profit, however exhorbitant it may be? (And however unnecessary you might consider the other players, e.g., producers, label execs, etc., the fact is that the band entered into an agreement with them, so it shouldn't be your concern what they make, either).
Am I wrong?
Adding in a new base wouldn't produce a new amino acid, certainly, I'm just suggesting that depending on the steric factors, the interaction might be permissive enough to allow some other tRNA to match up to one of these Franken-codons. The degeneracy of the genetic code shows plenty of flexibility, particularly toward the third base in a codon.
;)
But like I said, I'm no expert; if you've looked at the paper, you probably know more about it than I do.
Not necessarily. Depending on structure of these new bases, the existing tRNA hardware may be permissive enough to allow them, although what the odds of that are, I couldn't guess.
I like the band, but even I enjoyed it when Stan realized "that's how he can help so many people and still be a piece of shit!"
"...Bono was the biggest piece of shit ever."
Yeah, he's like 86 courics. Didn't you hear?
I'm not sure if it's awesome or awesomely disturbing that you've just cribbed parenting advice from the movie 'Ronin.' Bold move, in any case. I can't wait to tell my kids that they talk a good game in the living room, but they're weak when they put their spikes on.
That was my big complaint about the summary; glad to see there are other folks here keeping the faith. ;)
I'm most definitely anti-religion, no question, but why is it that when I mock religion, I'm a 'bigot' but when a religious person tries to convert me, or tells me how I'll burn in hell (in college an evangelical girl once said she could "smell Satan's brimstone" on me), they're just being devout?
Oh, wait, because religion is a sweet, sensual melding of ancient superstition and modern jackassery, that's why.
Incidentally, I don't really claim that religion alone holds back scientific progress, but there are plenty of reasons to bash it regardless.