Methane is odourless
Pig shit, not so much.
Methane is odourless
Pig shit, not so much.
First when they understand they can prevent their children from getting genes that e.g. code for nasty hereditary disease like cystic fibrosis.
Then more people will get on board if they believe they can get genes that reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease, caries, code for better eyesight, a stronger immune system etc.
After that I think we'll see offers for genes that code for needing less sleep, of even a cheery and sunny disposition.
And as to what people "want": that's irrelevant. To paraphrase Steve Jobs: don't ask people what they want
An revealing comment from someone who even posts anonymously on Slashdot.
First off, you might know that there was a big flap over the NSA hoovering people's personal communications (content plus metadata), and people generally weren't quite satisfied by the argument that if they had nothing to hide they had no reason to object against having their lives laid bare.
And here *you* are, posting anonymously, suggesting that if an academic has nothing to "hide", his entire email exchange is fair game for people abusing the courts to turn what should be a scientific debate into a politically motivated witch-hunt. Something you top off by turning the issue on its head and suggesting bad faith on part of someone unwilling to turn over his entire email database.
Actions of this kind are known as "fishing expeditions' and uniformly considered unreasonable and objectionable as they are aimed only at discovering something (anything really no matter how unrelated to the issue under debate), that conspiracy-theorists might be able to use to villify the defending party.
For your information, proper scientific debates are held on basis of examination of evidence and reasoning, for which scientific publications together with the underlying data are a necessary and sufficient basis. The way this works is: if someone can't (or won't) produce the underlying data, his articles and conclusions suffer a reduction in credibility and hence lose weight in the debate. Besides which, other data sources than his are brought to bear with which to test his conclusions. And both mechanisms have been in action in this case.
Examination of email correspondence is not relevant for scientific debate, and is the exclusive domain of witch-hunts and lynch mobs.
Rethorical questions such as yours (especially when posted anonymously) are used by conspiracy theorists and people who wish to use the instruments of harassment to intimidate scientists that voice politically inconvenient conclusions.
Umm, have you looked at who runs the schools that are failing to teach minorities to read? In particular you might want to take a close look at the party affiliation of those running the school boards, and the rest of the political machinery of the local government in those place. Further, you might want to look at the history of the political party in question. Then you should ask yourself, if they still held to the political philosophy and beliefs they held in 1860, what would they do differently to better accomplish goals in line with that political philosophy?
Without looking, it seems that, at least in inner urban areas, it would lean Democratic. Which makes it seem like failing to teach minorities to read would be in line with their belief in 1860.
On the other hand, such districts can be poorer. While the suburban schools are wealthier. My state used to have heavy state funding of schools, to even out disparities), but that started to be cut. According to a quick google search, the year it came under heavy attack involved a state congress that leaned Republican.
So depending on your political affiliation, you can blame whatever party you choose!
But my imagination never suffers from bad actors, dumb dialogue or terrible cgi.
.... make it stop!
Computers are things. It's always been an "Internet of Things".
"Internet of Things" is as stupid as if we suddenly started saying "highway of cars". It's both true and free of meaning at the same time
And no, calling it HoC wouldn't make "highway of cars" any more hip. Just stupider.
But IF there are effectively infinitely many vulns that can be found for less than the black market value, then fixing one does not decrease the probability that the attacker will find another one.
Right, and IF my grandmother had testicles, she'd be my grandfather.
If there is a way for a finite amount of code to contain an infinite number of bugs, I don't see it. (Netscape Navigator excepted of course
Wanted: People who are smart enough to work in tech, but dumb enough to live in an unsafe place.
They aren't actually going to live in Detroit, silly. They live in the suburbs.
Freedom of speech means that no government entity can go after you for the content of your communications, whether broadcast or otherwise.
Unless of course it has something to do with politics ("campaign finance reform").
Because obviously the founders wanted to protect nude dancing, not that nasty political speech.
So, you're going to solve being fired en-masse by banding together and refusing to go to work? Good luck with that plan.
Everything that can be invented has been invented. -- Charles Duell, Director of U.S. Patent Office, 1899