I think you don't get how genetics works.

Various biochemical pathways are conserved, and are there to react to different environmental conditions.

Disease is a moving target. As we suppress one disease, another takes its niche.

In most cases we only know the primary biochemical pathway, have sparse information on the secondary biochemical pathway which kicks in when the primary pathway is disrupted, and have little to no information on the evolutionarily conserved tertiary biochemical pathway we inherited from fish or dinosaurs.

Making "designer" kids leads us to less genetic diversity, and less adaptive capacity as a species to stressors which will occur.

That plus in most cases we end up with too many males and not enough females when we let people "choose".

More free skeet targets.

If you want your robot back, don't send it over my airspace.

No, there is a growing move to outsource Lawyer jobs too.

There are a few nations that provide the bulk of H1-B "workers".

Look at job ads in those locations - those are the people that will replace the US workers.

" Pollenated weed plants grow seeds instead of synthesizing THC and other cannabinoids. Well, they still synthesize these compounds, but in much smaller quantities."

As a medical user that grows it all the time, WRONG.

Most of the useful cannabinoids are produced and contained within the trichome. Seeded sections of flowers tend to have higher concentrations of these trichomes, as it's a protective measure against UV damage by the sun to the developing embryo, due to how thin the tissue of the calyx is.

Exactly. I've got a 55 gallon freshwater, using a single 50w 6500K panel (I'm only driving it at half power.) Everything is well-lit and the plants grow so quickly I'm having to remove an entire jungle every time I'm changing the water.

And anyone with half a brain knows they can just go to the manufacturer direct in most cases and get what they need. They have no qualms selling to you at the price they give to wholesalers and retailers. None.

On the other hand, finding someone that knows EXACTLY what you need (my job) per a given situation is not easy, which means most people are still stuck listening to the marketing of fly-by-night ebay companies and less than reputable LED grow light companies that claim to have patents when they're just reselling stuff from China.

The most wear sensitive part of a laser printer is the copy drum. If I recall correctly the old LaserJets had the drum integrated with the toner cartidge, so you replace to most quickly wearing part of the printer four or five thousand pages. It's no wonder they lasted so long. The mechanical parts that move the paper through the printer are pretty robust, so I wouldn't be surprised if the printers go until the capacitors in the electronics dry up, or the internal power connectors go bad.

"This Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org] has several examples of the efficiency of different kinds of lights. Most of the LED examples they give show around 50-100 lumens per watt."

Quit relying upon Wikipedia. It's outdated. Cree's already pushing 300+ in the labs and have 200+ commercially available. Most LEDs are pushing 130-150 right now.

You've listened to wayyyyy too much marketing and read too much ill-educated nonsense on cannabis forums.

The light cycle itself triggers flowering. Red light just happens to be a bit more efficient than blue for photosynthesis. I've done flowering under pure blue light and still obtained the typical stated yield from the seed supplier's website.

HPS gets used for flowering because the intense green output, which can go through the canopy, down to lower sections of the plant, where the green has overall superior quantum yield, as red and blue will not penetrate that far. IR has minor effect.

Guess what? We've got white LEDs pushing well past anything HPS lamps can do in terms of lumens per watt (really we're looking for photon flux density) and at color temperatures much closer to the natural light of the sun. HID? Finished.

That would be interesting, if it were true. Here's what TFA says:

"Del." I assume is short for "delegate". According to their website, the American Tradition Institute's tag line is "Free Market Environmentalism through *Litigation*" I assuming this means they aren't pals with Greenpeace, or even The Sierra Club, any more than the National Socialists in Germany were pals with the socialist Republicans in 1930s Spain.

I'm pretty sure it was written by different people than it claims.

Also, two creation myths? Seriously, how does that hold up?

And this whole Noah and the Ark thing sounds kind of fishy to me. Let alone that guy who survived inside a whale.

I see what you did there, but your punny play aside we really should. Some people might miss the humor of your remark.

Depends on what you consider "hiding the research". A fishing expedition through a scientist's personal correspondence is an invitation to judge his work on *political* grounds.

In science your personal beliefs, relationships, and biography are irrelevant. There are evangelical Christian climate scientists who believe climate won't change because that would contradict God's will as expressed in the Bible. These scientists may be regarded as religious crackpots by their peers, but that hasn't prevented them from publishing in the same peer-reviewed journals as everyone else. Since their papers invariably are climate-change skeptic, clearly they are publishing work which supports their religious beliefs. But their motivations don't matter. What matters is in their scientific publications.

In 1988, Gary Hart's presidential bid and political career were ruined when he was photographed cavorting on a yacht named "Monkey Business" with a woman that wasn't his wife. Now I didn't care how many bimbos he was boinking, but a lot of people *did*, which made it a political issue (albeit a stupid one in my opinion). Do we really want to use the coercive power of the state to dig through the private lives of controversial scientists?

It's a pretense that that would serve any scientific purpose. Maybe Mann is intent on overthrowing capitalism and creating a socialist utopia. That would be relevant if he were running for dogcatcher, but it's irrelevant to what's in his scientific papers. Scientists publish papers all the time with ulterior motives, not the least of which is that they're being paid to do research that makes corporate sponsors happy. As long as what's in the paper passes muster, it's still science.

The data gets off it via bluetooth to a more powerful device. So yes, no UI at all.

What about acting? Or fiction? These are artificial experiences that evoke real emotional responses. Once the right buttons in your brain are pushed, most of your brain can't tell the difference between what is real and what is synthetic.

Granted, authenticity in human interactions is important, but it's overrated. Fake engagement often is a perfectly acceptable substitute. Situations where people put considerable effort into *seeming* pleasant usually *are* more pleasant than they would be if everyone felt free to paste their indifference to you right on their faces.

So this is a very interesting technology. What's disturbing about it isn't that people might be fooled into thinking the user is truly interested; it's that the user himself no longer puts any effort into creating that illusion. What if that effort is in itself something important? What if fake engagement is often the prelude to real engagement? Maybe you have to start with polite interest and work your way up to the real thing; I suspect the dumber parts of your brain can't tell the difference. If that's true, taking the user's brain out of the interaction means that interaction will automatically be trapped on a superficial level. This already happens in bureaucratic situations where employees are reduce to rules-following automatons. Take the brain out of the equation and indifference follows.

I suspect that the researchers are well aware of these issues; I believe that I discern a certain deadpan, ironic puckishness on their part. People who truly view engagement with other people as an unwelcome burden don't work on technologies that mediate between people.