Actually, the PI would take odd hour shifts when necessary. I guess that's part of why everyone else was willing to do it without complaint once in a while. Lead by example...

Then again, he eventually left the lab and started a company doing sleep research that was later bought out by a big pharma. I guess keeping rats awake in the name of science wasn't as rewarding as doing it in the name of a $10B+ insomnia drug market. Not that I can complain, I left that field a long time ago for tech startups as well. Lead by example, again :)

But anyway - to your point that you claim that the OP's comment about 24 hour fasting vs 48-72 hour fasting not being supported by the evidence - it seems clearly supported to me, since that was one of the main points of the study! One of key data sets they relied on was lymphocyte (and other) counts in 24 vs 72 hour fasting (it's in the full paper on Cell). And a major conclusion was "the results from a phase I clinical trial indicate that 72 but not 24 hr of PF in combination with chemotherapy were associated with normal lymphocyte counts and maintenance of a normal lineage balance in WBCs"

And if you think about it clearly 12-24 hours is not enough to be considered "fasting" from a ketosis perspective, since that's pretty much in the range of what most humans do every night. Fasting from sunup to sundown and pigging out afterwards really isn't that much different; basically just skipping a midday meal, which many people also do.

I guess you've never been a grad student/tech, then? In the lab I worked in (with rats and mice, actually, though it was sleep & circadian research) they had no problem sending the grad students - or even better, the undergrad interns - in at midnight to do various studies.

Yes, I have sat after midnight in a lab lit only by dim red light (doesn't interrupt rat rhythms) for several hours basically keeping rats awake when they start to nod off. Which is also why our lab invented a cage that would automatically tip the rats into a pool of water when they fell asleep. Which I guess is a bit ironic that the pursuit of a decent night's sleep led to a device that prevented a decent night's sleep...

Damn, I just posted or I'd have modded this one up :)

Yeah, seriously... someone is smart enough to hack a street sign, but not smart enough to think of it? I'd say there are probably 100 people who would think "hey it would be cool to hack that sign" for every one who is capable of doing it.

The kind of people who can be influenced by a silly hacker video game are not often those with the intelligence to do anything about it.

Most crimes under the age of 18 are sealed and generally not reported by name by the media in the US, as well. Focusing on that is a straw man, anyway, since that's really not the issue here - and besides that Google ALREADY has a policy (and some US states have laws) of removing private information on minors.

I'd be willing to bet of the 41,000+ requests referenced by the article few if any were for removing sealed juvenile records. The other 99.9% of the cases is the relevant discussion.

In mobile maybe. It's doing well but not "massively" dominant in the TV market, though. In that area it's gaining ground but still in heavy competition with MIPS.

ARM is SO not going to be competing in servers any time soon. Our "cheap" x86-64 servers are already at 24 cores and 64-96GB RAM. Once ARM gets anywhere near that those server specs will be 4x that, or more...

They may have originally served the purpose of protection of the consumer, but now they clearly serve the purpose of protection of the status quo. You think the fact that taxi licenses/medallions in most major cities are severely limited below demand is because they have just found the cream of the crop of drivers and no one else is trustworthy and capable?

Those companies *love* the regulations they have played by, because they are the status quo and they have used the regulations to prevent what we are seeing today with Uber, etc.

It's the same sort of thing that is preventing Tesla from being able to operate dealerships in some states - there was some obscure argument 60 years ago based on Detroit monopolies and pork politics to separate manufacturers form dealerships, and now the dealerships are using a totally obsolete law to protect their status quo.

Not so worried about the cars, Uber and Lyft inspect them to make sure they are in good condition, and even if they didn't the first bad ride would flag it.

Much more worrying is the fact they feel the need to charge extra for extra guarantees of non-serial-killer-drivers...

http://valleywag.gawker.com/wh...

But if there isn't a specific law differentiating the two, it's just the arbitrary whims of some judge deciding what's censorship and what isn't. Which just seems wrong to me. At least if you are going to put censorship into law, codify it and don't rely on some indescribable common law precedent based on what the mood of a public official that day. Personally I think if it's not illegal to print in a news article it shouldn't be illegal to put on the web.

If someone writes about a person who raped or murdered and was convicted for it, and that person is later released, does that mean that ex-convict has the right to have that writing buried? I'd say not. Rehabilitation is fine, but that doesn't mean they have to be forgiven or that it needs to be suppressed.

Anyway, I said public information. You can debate what that means or what ends up as something that rightfully should be removed, but it's irrelevant to my comment, since the point was that the OP was implying Google should just be removing anything anyone asks to be removed without investigating it first or they are "evil", which I strongly disagree with as promoting censorship. I see no difference from that and Google removing any links, Youtube posts, etc that any company claims violates their copyrights without investigating.

Irrelevant to the point that the OP basically asked why Google didn't just delete everything requested, since I'm pretty sure public record is not defined as "only things that someone didn't request Google remove links to".

Is it evil to refuse to delete information about a person's public comments or valid criminal record?

Removing slander is one thing, removing accurate information that is public record could be considered censorship. Which is evil in that case? Or... wow, maybe it's not so black and white...

Yes, there are...

http://latino.foxnews.com/lati...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

See, now if it weren't for that wink this comment could easily have been interpreted as a veiled threat towards 'some guy'. Emoticons save lives!

No, since it's the Secret Service, they want to be able to distinguish sarcastic *threats* against sincere threats. Sincere threats are not protected speech.

I'm sure a million people a day make some form of whiny sarcastic threat against the President or other elected officials, but luckily most of them are not sincere.