Well, I do agree with you the media is as much to blame as any talking heads spewing the misinformation (just not that we should give the original sources a pass).

The problem is same as with global warming, evolution, or other fringe non-scientific alternative opinions. The media tries to "balance" the argument by providing equal coverage of both sides when in reality the actual evidence/voices/etc are overwhelmingly in favor of one side (skip to 3:20 if you just want the punchline...)

Also, what TFA did point out but the summary didn't is that even if the immunization had reduced effectiveness, most cases would be less severe in someone who has been vaccinated, which can be the difference between a very annoying illness and a life-threatening one.

She's still promoting unsubstantiated FUD about vaccinations, she has just switched her focus from autism to "toxins".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

"Yet as doctors say, dosage makes the poison. The amount of, say, formaldehyde in a typical vaccination is much less than you’d get eating an apple. The same can be shown for the other ingredients claimed to be toxins in vaccines as well. The truth is vaccines contain far too small a dose of any of these things to cause any of the problems McCarthy and other anti-vaxxers claim exist.as doctors say, dosage makes the poison.

Also, botulinum is the single most lethal toxin known to humans. Yet McCarthy has enthusiastically praised injecting this toxin into her face. How can anyone possibly say that and also say vaccines have dangerous levels of toxins in them with a straight face?"

Yeah, totally. America has never had much luck with its space program!

Eh, I think "Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology" was pretty clear. Of course they are going to bring the lawyers in and codify it all, etc. I'm sure it will be the pretty standard "you don't sue us we won't sue you kind of thing" plenty of other companies have already done. This was a blog post, not a legal document...

In fact, RTFA and not just the two sentence quoted in the summary, and said clearer statement is already there :)

And most importantly...

not good faith: using our patents and then trying to sue us for infringing yours.

They aren't going to give up their defensive position, they are basically just promising not to sue if they are not sued.

If there was a written agreement/contract or patent license (which I assume there will be, and it will also include very specific clauses about indemnifying Tesla against any lawsuits of the licensee) then it doesn't matter.

And despite the casual tone of Musk's post, Tesla is a large public company and still beholden to shareholders, etc. They will undoubtedly get the lawyers involved to make sure things go as planned. This isn't the first time a company has done this (or similarly, multiple companies have pooled their defensive patents), so it's not like there aren't established practices already...

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not... because it's EXACTLY WHAT THE LINKED BLOG POST IS. And in fact, that's exactly what Slashdot just did...

They don't really need something "new", because what they already have is a completely new mindset for a car company. They are so far ahead of the established old-thought auto makers in so many areas that it would take the rest of them a complete overhaul of their entire executive staff, middle management, engineer and design teams, factories, etc, to get close.

Not to mention they are profitable and make an $80k+ niche car that has been backordered since well before it was ever released. At some level it's like Ferrari saying "ok, we are releasing the patents behind our $1M supercar" - the market is so specialized it wouldn't matter, and Ferrari's demand so outstrips their supply you basically have to get permission from Ferrari to even buy one.

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.