Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

+ - 23andme.com DNA Health Risk Analysis Service Suspended->

Submitted by twebb72
twebb72 (903169) writes "23andme.com DNA health risk interpretation service has been suspended due to an FDA request:

At this time, we have suspended our health-related genetic tests to comply immediately with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s directive to discontinue new consumer access during our regulatory review process.

"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Calories (Score 1) 440

by twebb72 (#45419679) Attached to: Soylent: No Food For 30 Days

EVERYONE'S bodies behaveexactly the same to identical diets (eventually)

Not true. Thyroid, autoimmune issues (certain diseases like Crohn's), gut flora,... can absolutely have a significant impact on metabolism or one's ability to properly digest foods. The body often compensates by either burning/storing more or less depending on certain circumstances. Even environmental conditions contribute to the big picture. Its an oversimplification of the metabolic process to say everyone responds the same to the same diet.

Comment: Re:Nooooooo! Just shut up and buy a dinosaur saddl (Score 1) 278

by Byrel (#43351593) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain That Humans Didn't Ride Dinosaurs?

Not if they've been able to find my oil. Earth Science matters to them; not to me. If I have a zillion misconceptions in everything from geology to archaeology it won't objectively influence my life. I don't work in a field influenced by them.

That's not to say I won't be bothered when I find out I was so wrong. It simply means that it doesn't affect my competence in anything I do.

Comment: Re:Nooooooo! Just shut up and buy a dinosaur saddl (Score 1) 278

by Byrel (#43350263) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: How Do I Explain That Humans Didn't Ride Dinosaurs?

I didn't say that. I was wrong recently when I said here that the PSP had hardware PSX emulation. But that's hardly a consequential fact, unlike basic facts of paleontology. It's possible to have a coherent model of the world where PSX emulation is implemented in hardware. But finding man tracks next to dinosaur tracks would upend entire disciplines of earth science.

And 'entire discliplines of earth science' are important exactly why? Really, the group of people whose lives would be noticeably impacted by an error in ancient history is on the same order of magnitude as the folks impacted by hardware/software emulation on a PSP. A small handful. Everyone else has no real reason to care.

A lot of technical folks, myself included, make a fetish out of factual accuracy in field we find fascinating. A lot of us have very broad interests, so that fetish may well extend into history, philosophy, materials science, rocket engineering, etc. (Actually, that's the first fields that come to mind for my obsession.) But we should try to keep some perspective as well, and admit that we like this accuracy simply because we do. Maybe it's a taste of OCD; maybe it's something else. But no rational argument can justify the amount of time I spend poring over dull tomes of nearly useless data. I just like filling my mind with it, so I do it.

If someone else doesn't care about it, I should probably respect their superior objective function, as it doesn't make them waste time studying the details of minor branches of Austrian economics. Maybe they spend more time on truly useful info.

Comment: Re:Some conversations are for illegal activities (Score 2) 283

by twebb72 (#43289013) Attached to: Real-Time Gmail Spying a 'Top Priority' For FBI This Year

[Privacy] is expected, and protected by the constitution of the United States - you know, that pesky little document you swore to uphold and defend, not mutilate and destroy.

Actually, the constitution doesn't touch on privacy rights, however, the Bill of Rights does reflect some of the spirit of the right to privacy in the sense of freedom of speech (1); privacy of the home (3); privacy from searches and seizure (4); abuse of government authority and due process (V) -- however there is no amendment that specifically states a right to privacy.

I'd agree though that the judicial branch's interpretation of the Bill of Rights is grossly out of whack. While they extend the privacy of the home (3) (specifically worded as 'No Soldier [can] be quartered in any house without consent') as extending to mean 'No agents of the State'; severely restricting law enforcement from entering the home in (nearly) any capacity. Meanwhile they interpret "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" as 'we can read your emails, personal conversations, and Netflix recommendations on demand, and if you're doing something we don't like, expect us to bust down the door.'

Moreover, the supreme court ruled in Olmstead v. United States (back in good ol' 1928) that a wiretap violated neither the 4th or 5th amendment; this set the precedent that has turned into the status quo for the government law enforcement branches... Bush then passed the Patriot Act to make us safe from the terrorists. Then the Library of Congress gets to decide that unlocking cell phones isn't allow[comment truncated due to anti-American propaganda]

Comment: Re:A true and accurate and transparent lie detecto (Score 1) 456

by Byrel (#43226061) Attached to: If I could augment my senses (w/ implant or similar) ...

And this poll right here is another testimony of American society as a whole being utterly mentally ill. (As has been shown by that study that compared worldwide societies, and found that all our social science studies are wrong, because they used Americans, and those are not only the exception, but the extreme exception of the exception.)

And we all know exceptionalism is a form of illness.

Comment: Re:Obama in other times would be Reagan (Score 1) 409

by Byrel (#43214719) Attached to: Obama Wants To Fund Clean Energy Research With Oil & Gas Funds

By the sounds of things, idea generation.

This was after being a joke, as the OP was claiming BO was using Republican ideas...

In reality, they're there to help the rich get richer. Their appeal to "different cultures" is just a matter of exploiting anyone whose knees they can make jerk, so that they'll vote against their own best interests.

Nonsense. A good many Republican economic policies can also be found in the works of eminent economists like Milton Freedman and von Mises, as being the best choices for helping the lower classes. You may disagree with those economists; there are experts in the field who do. But when a good chunk of the experts in ecominics actually recommend limited regulation and low government intervention as tending more to uplifting the poor, it's a bit malicious to claim advocates of those positions are in it to hurt the poor. Much more likely, they actually believe (some of) classic liberal economics, and are trying to implement its prescriptions.

It's this sort of ridiculous emotional dismissal which makes public discourse on politics so divisive in the US. 90% of Republicans aren't rich and likely will never be. They obviously support the party for some reason. I think the reasons of 90% of the members for the party's existence trump the other 10%!

It's almost universally better to assume your opponent is arguing in good faith. He may be (very) wrong, but just assume he really means what he says. It's both more likely to be true, and permits a more persuasive argument from you. Even if he isn't, your argument will be heard by others who may be persuaded.

Of course you can't flap your arms and fly to the moon. After a while you'd run out of air to push against.

Working...