Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The only good thing (Score 4, Insightful) 489

by bunratty (#47549773) Attached to: Suddenly Visible: Illicit Drugs As Part of Silicon Valley Culture
I was taught that using marijuana leads to heroin use. When you see many people around you that do not adhere to that model, you start disregarding the information as BS. After realizing how ridiculous some of the information presented about drugs was, I disregarded it all, so it actually backfired. The purpose of drug programs should be to inform students of the real consequences of drug use, not to make up horror stories to scare students.

Comment: Re:Ban caffeine! (Score 4, Insightful) 489

by bunratty (#47549713) Attached to: Suddenly Visible: Illicit Drugs As Part of Silicon Valley Culture
The whole notion of a "gateway drug" is the misconception that correlation implies causation. Just because someone used caffiene, nicotine, alcohol, or marijuana before moving on to more powerful drugs does not mean that they caused the use of more powerful drugs. You could ban all of those drugs, and some other drug would become the first one users try.

+ - Researchers fully 'delete' HIV from human cells for the first time

Submitted by mrspoonsi
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "So far, HIV has eluded a cure because it installs its genome into human DNA so insidiously that it's impossible for our immune system to clear it out. While current treatments are effective, a lifetime of toxic drugs are required to prevent its recurrence. But researchers from Temple University may have figured out a way to permanently excise it using a highly-engineered HIV "editor." Here's how it works: the team analyzed a part of our immune system that fights infection and built a "guide RNA" strand consisting of 20 nucleotides (RNA building blocks). Those strands were then injected into cells typically infected with HIV, like T-cells. There, they targeted the end parts of the virus's gene and snipped out all 9,709 nucleotides that made up its genome. Since the guide RNA strand contained no human DNA sequences, it left the host cell intact — but free from HIV."

+ - Why are the world's scientists continuing to take chances with smallpox?->

Submitted by Lasrick
Lasrick (2629253) writes "MIT's Jeanne Guillemin looks at the recent blunders with smallpox and H5N1 at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health to chronicle the fascinating history of smallpox eradication efforts and the attempts (thwarted by Western scientists) to destroy lab collections of the virus in order to make it truly extinct. 'In 1986, with no new smallpox cases reported, the World Health Assembly, the decision-making body of the WHO, resolved to destroy the strain collections and make the virus extinct. But there was resistance to this; American scientists in particular wanted to continue their research.' Within a few years, secret biological warfare programs were discovered in Moscow and in Iraq, and a new flurry of defensive research was funded. Nevertheless, Guillemin and others believe that changes in research methods, which no longer require the use of live viruses, mean that stocks of the live smallpox virus can and should finally be destroyed."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Smokin observation (Score 1) 282

There is not discrimination against smokers.

There are companies that will not hire you if you have nicotine in your system, if that isn't discrimination I don't know what is. I don't even smoke, but I do chew nicotine gum so I wouldn't be even considered for a position at these companies.

Comment: Re:Gentlemen, start your engines. (Score 1) 701

by bunratty (#47506681) Attached to: Favorite "Go!" Phrase?
I went on to watch a debate between Denning and Roy Spencer. I found Spencer's talk to be intriguing, but too optimistic:
1) He says that by his calculations, climate sensitivity is about 1.3 degrees Celsius, and could be lower. But he doesn't mention is could be higher, also.
2) He says that there has been no warming in the past decade or so, but doesn't address recent sea level rise and ice melt that does indicate warming.
3) He says he believes carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will not triple and may not even double, but offers no reasoning to support his beliefs.
The truth is that no one knows exactly what will happen, and Dr. Spencer could turn out to be right. But he gives no reason to be so optimistic. He just is. What if he's wrong? I remain skeptical of his beliefs.

Comment: Re:The crackpot cosmology "theory" Du Jour (Score 1) 214

by bunratty (#47474803) Attached to: Cosmologists Show Negative Mass Could Exist In Our Universe
Science is about generating hypotheses, then determining which are incorrect. Many things we take for granted in science now sounded too fantastic to believe when they were proposed. Quantum physics, plate tectonics, and ulcers caused by h. pylori are three examples that come to mind. On the other hand, you shouldn't blindly believe any new hypothesis just because you like it -- you should demand evidence before you accept a new idea.

Comment: Re:Data suggests only suck so bad since 2000, 14 y (Score 2) 382

by Enigma2175 (#47463799) Attached to: White House Punts On Petition To Allow Tesla Direct Sales

There's certainly hope that we can get another Kennedy/Reagan/Eisenhower* next time. Maybe if we try to choose based on COMPETENCE rather than just whoever most extremely mirrors our favored ideology.

* (Not an actual Kennedy of course, the good one is dead. HW Bush / Bush Jr. should have taught us something about electing a guy because he was related to a decent president.)

Good fucking luck. It's looking like 2016 is going to be Hillary (yet ANOTHER person who's only qualification for president is that she is related to one) and whatever republican manages to out-crazy the rest of them. It's going to be yet another episode of giant douche vs. shit sandwich. You can vote for the corporate tool or the corporate tool.

Comment: Re:Some shops already have (Score 4, Insightful) 753

by Enigma2175 (#47446469) Attached to: Predicting a Future Free of Dollar Bills

Why not? I was on a Delta flight the other day and the only way to purchase in-flight cocktails was via credit card. On another flight the same day, the same purchase could only be made in cash. I am not aware of any laws that require businesses to accept a certain form of payment, and why should there be? If a business doesn't accept cash (or credit cards, or chickens, or bitcoin) and their customers prefer that method of payment, it will show up in their bottom line. Why would the government need to intervene in such a transaction?

"Just think of a computer as hardware you can program." -- Nigel de la Tierre