Add IPX8 to the high specs.

http://www.liquipel.com/

They coat the chips in some sort of coating that insulates them.

Another idea which I like even better is to immerse the whole machine in mineral oil.

It is non-conductive. Somethings might need to be insulated against the oil like harddrives but everything else can just sit in it. From what I've gathered the entire tank of mineral oil acts like a giant heat sink to such an extent that a system like that can passively cool itself WITH overclocking.

I keep meaning to build a mineral oil cooled computer and keep chickening out.

Anyway, it has the virtue of being something you could seal and then take to the literal bottom of the ocean without worrying about a rupture.

That is pretty water proof.

Fine, we'll just go back to trade secrets.

That is what we had before patients. Companies simply kept information to themselves.

And a result of that was a much lower rate technological development because information was fragmented.

Look, if I come up with something... if I create something... why shouldn't I get rewarded for that? Why would you assume you have a right to take what I create and pay me nothing? Don't you see that I can't live or make that my job if I can't get paid? And if I can't get paid doing it, then that means I have to spend most of my time doing something else and only create in my spare time for FUN. You're going to get much less out of people if you do that then if you support them so they can produce stuff all the time. What is more, you're going to make sure that big companies and organizations spend basically no time creating anything. They'll make stuff but it won't be innovative because none of their own IP will be protected unless they keep it as a trade secret which means the secrets might be in a factory machine or something but never obvious in the final product.

The illogic of your position is just so fucking obvious... how can you not see how self destructive your position is here? You're cutting your dick off and saying "why is that a problem?".... well... I don't really mind if you want to live in a society like that. That is fine by me. I just don't want to live in your society then. I'll live in a society where IP is protected and you can live in one where it isn't. And we'll just see where that goes.

File it under "stuff that matters".

A lot of arguments for open source are based on things which people outside the project could in principle accomplish, but in practice seldom do. So it's reassuring at least that an experienced developer can build the two most popular browsers from scratch. It means the arguments aren't hollow. I've seen closed source projects that were purchased by companies, only to find out that getting them to build on any computer but the one it was developed on is a serious engineering challenge.

That the process of building these browsers from scratch is somewhat arcane will come as no surprise to any experienced developer. But that it's not so arcane that it's impractical to figure out is good news.

Is it unreasonable for the average height of a population to grow by 7" in twenty generations? I should think so. But if you changed your initial conditions somewhat, maybe less unreasonable.

There are roughly 400 genes known to influence height. Imagine we have a small, isolated population that does not interbreed with other populations -- say on an isolated island. This population's average male height is, say 175 cm for men -- roughly the same as the average American. However the population contains all the alleles neede to generate individuals approacing 7' in height. We then take our population and put them under evolutionary pressure; let's say we shoot everyone who reaches the age of 16 and is below average height. It wouldn't many generations for that population's average height to become quite tall, as "tall genes" begin to predominate.

Let's change that initial condition by stipulating that there are no "tall genes" in the initial population. It's still average height, but maybe it lacks both "tall genes" and "short genes". It would be surprising if the genetic height potential for a newborn changed very quickly, because you've got to wait for a lot of "lucky" mutations and twenty generations is not that long.

Let's go back to our successful initial conditions and change something else. This time the population has all the necessary alleles to produce super-tall people, but it interbreeds extensively with a large external population which is not subject to our culling protocol. Under these conditions the population's height increase will be slow, or non-existent depending on the rate at which individuals interbreed with populations not under pressure.

The bottom line: it depends.

This should be REALLY USEFUL - for gene therapy and stem cell therapy.

One of the big problems with such therapies is how to deliver the modified genes or regulators to the target cells, without converting them to something that would be rejected or otherwise have unintended markers or modifications.

One approach is to deliver genes or regulatory chemicals via a modified virius or using viral capsid proteins to construct an "injector". (A family of methods for turning harvested somatic cells into toti/pluri/multi/unipotent stem cells consists of inserting four regulatory proteins - by inserting about four GENES THAT CODE FOR THEM via a modified virus.)

Now here we have a a method, already used by the body, to transport RNA signalling snippets and other factors from one cell into another, by a sending cell creating virus-like carrier particles that destination cells readily accept and absorb.

THAT looks like an IDEAL basis for building a carrier for regulatory factors to switch cell modes on and off, or to tote new genetic material into a target cell for incorporation, to correct genetic errors or supply lost genes:

  1) Make fake exosomes carrying the message you want to deliver.
  2) Inject them into the tissue you want to affect.
  3) Rewrite the state or code of the target cells.
  4) Cure disease (or otherwise augment the patient's health).
  5) PROFIT!

Viruses by definition contain genetic code from outside the host organism.

On the other hand, just as some organelles (i.e. mitochondria, chloroplasts) are apparently the remnant of a microbial infection or ancient symbiosis that became integrated, there are several cellular mechanisms that are apparently remnants of an ancient retrovirus infection, where the bulk of the viral genome was lost but one of its mechanisms was retained and adapted to perform some useful new function.

I'd be willing to bet this is another example of such an

No, you'd have to be inbred with the cancer 'donor' to not reject their cancer as readily as you'd reject an organ transplant from them.

Not necessarily.

These things aren't carrying the full-blown genome. They're carrying little bits of it - like regulatory switches (or something that functions like that). They ought to be able, occasionally, to covert another person's cells JUST FINE without also marking them as any more foreign than an equivalent cancer naturally arising in that person.

The demand for jobs didn't go down until the government did two things.

1. Ruined the finance market by manipulating prices which directly led to the 2008 collapse.

2. Started artificially increasing the cost of employing people.

You fuck with corporate and market finance and then raise the cost of labor... SHOCKER demand for labor falls as corporations act defensively to preserve capital.

Corps have lots of money and interested in hiring people. They just want competitive labor in a stable market.

Now here someone is going to say "I don't want to work 3rd world wages!"... no one does. The third world isn't paying them anymore these days. Wages in china are coming up fast. That said, the issue is not what you're paid but what the company pays TOTAL to produce goods or services in your country.

There are a lot of things the US can do to make its labor more competitive. There are a lot of good things about doing business in the US versus china. You just have to leverage those while minimizing the negatives.

Already we're getting manufacturing come BACK from china because those pros and cons balanced out.

I don't have to share my IP with you or anyone. I can make it and keep it for myself. Who's is it now?

And what incentive do I have to share it with you or make it if you're just going to jack it?

You're effectively justifying behavior that undermines the whole information economy. It's fucking retarded.

Wrong. The transition happened concurrently and that is a matter of historical record.

The pain and disruption came from people attempting to stay on farms or having a hard time transitioning to factory labor. They didn't have the correct skill sets. They had the wrong culture for the work. And it basically forced a lot of people to start all over again in life.

Which is hard. But tell me this... you want to go back to the farm? Want to turn the clock back and shuck hay all your life?

Tell me now? Yes or no?

Because if not... then don't fight the future. It is coming whether you like it or not. And this infantile talk of rebellion is little more then a temper tantrum.

You're going to lose your job because all human work is going through a transformative change that will inconvenience you?

Allow me to break out the smallest violin in the world. It will suck for many. No doubt. Change is hard. But we do have welfare and EBT cards and stuff if you're totally incapable or unwilling to change. So you won't literally starve.

And the following generations will adapt and the things will be better.

There's no point bitching about it. Its like complaining about the weather. Its going to happen whether you complain or not.