Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Experiments performed only on 3 test subjects (Score 1) 521

by Saysys (#37060100) Attached to: Cancer Cured By HIV
http://www.kvia.com/news/28836239/detail.html
"A year after the therapy, two of the patients had complete remission of leukemia and one had a partial response to the therapy."


looks like 2 out of 3 people are in full remission... doesn't sound like being only 70% of cancerous tissues removed to me.

Comment: Re:diabetes research (Score 1) 1017

by Saysys (#35865736) Attached to: Is Sugar Toxic?

the toxicity of sugar (sucrose, glucose, fructose, etc) is one of things that almost no researcher in the know dares to mention publicly because it would be career (and funding) suicide. the processed food industry is far too powerful a lobby group.

This is so wrong it hurts. The point of tenure is so that someone CAN say such things, if such things could be backed up then they would be. The case presented in the video is reasonable but over stated; your conspiracy theory is both unreasonable and overstated.

+ - The End of Scarce Oil and Atmospheric CO2 Problems-> 1

Submitted by Saysys
Saysys (976276) writes "n September, a privately held and highly secretive U.S. biotech company named Joule Unlimited received a patent for “a proprietary organism” – a genetically engineered cyanobacterium that produces liquid hydrocarbons: diesel fuel, jet fuel and gasoline. This breakthrough technology, the company says, will deliver renewable supplies of liquid fossil fuel almost anywhere on Earth, in essentially unlimited quantity and at an energy-cost equivalent of $30 (U.S.) a barrel of crude oil. It will deliver, the company says, “fossil fuels on demand.”

oule says it now has “a library” of fossil-fuel organisms at work in its Massachusetts labs, each engineered to produce a different fuel. It has “proven the process,” has produced ethanol (for example) at a rate equivalent to 10,000 U.S. gallons an acre a year. It anticipates that this yield could hit 25,000 gallons an acre a year when scaled for commercial production, equivalent to roughly 800 barrels of crude an acre a year."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:The problem in the US... (Score 1) 298

by Saysys (#34696538) Attached to: Can Movies Inspire Kids To Be Future Scientists?

Is not to inspire future scientists. It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist, and allocated resources as if they could, when only the 1st percentile or less can actually fill these positions.

I don't see how 'movies' solves this problem: instead, it makes people with Wal-Mart skills, think that they *should* have a better lot in life, and resent that something is wrong if they don't, and spend money trying to get degrees that are meaningless, and so forth ad infinitum.

According to From Hauser, Robert M. 2002. "Meritocracy, cognitive ability, and the sources of occupational success." CDE Working Paper 98-07 (rev). Center for Demography and Ecology, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. Over 10% of social scientists, people in computer related occupations, materials engineers and a non-negligible number of university professors, electrical engineers, lawyers, hard scientists, and general engineers have an IQ under 100. To be fair, though, the bottom 10% of physicians have an IQ under 113

This hardly relegates the jobs of scientist, lawyer or even doctor to the top 1%. With the exception of doctor, which requires being in the top 20%, all of these jobs could be obtained by someone with a sub 100 IQ.

That said, it is not very likely that your theoretical 90 (bottom 25%) is going to get a job outside of sales, police, electrician, mechanic etc.

Comment: Re:Feel safe now? (Score 1) 391

by Saysys (#34179776) Attached to: Real-Life Gadgets For Real-Life Superheroes
...and yet the demographic of the persons caring guns is not taken int account. No one wants to say it, but the truth is that 'urban' youth tend to carry because they get shot at and shoot because others carry. Making guns illegal would not fix the problem, these people already have guns illegally.

It isn't that having a gun makes you more prone to use it, it is that the need to use a gun makes you more prone to have it.

Comment: For those not stupid enough to know: (Score 3, Interesting) 101

by Saysys (#32902328) Attached to: Privacy Flaws In Chatroulette Expose Users
"Chatroulette is a website that pairs random strangers from around the world together for webcam-based conversations. Visitors to the website randomly begin an online chat (video, audio and text) with another visitor. At any point, either user may leave the current chat by initiating another random connection. As of July 11 the site is offering an experimental "localized" version which pairs people by state". -wikipedia

So 1.) people find each-other intentional and 2.) "using information obtained in chats" I can get you SSN... if you tell me.

Literal nothing worthy of note in this research folks... move on.

Comment: Re:How can a black hole emit anything? (Score 2, Insightful) 145

by Saysys (#32895648) Attached to: Black Hole Emits a 1,000-Light-Year-Wide Gas Bubble
It's the Quine part of the QDT that has the real problem.

You see, an epistemological assumption that we can never know truth comes either from a limitation of human conscience or from an ontological assumption that there is no truth to be found.

In reality, there is a reality, there is truth, we are simply constrained by our human limitations when it comes to interpreting it.

If you read what I said I didn't argue that pure falsifiability can be obtained any more than the pure utility of a theory can be obtained; simply that these are theoretical anchor points on which the continuum of theory lies.

Remember: objective, not subjective, Bayesian inferences are what have brought us to the spam filters, etc.

Comment: Re:How can a black hole emit anything? (Score 3, Interesting) 145

by Saysys (#32858260) Attached to: Black Hole Emits a 1,000-Light-Year-Wide Gas Bubble
Actually theories are abstractions of the relationships between concepts that are only indirectly-measurable, while hypothesis are the more concrete understanding of the world derived from empirical evidence and link that which is measurable to that which is not. Without some level of indirect-measurement required there is no need for a theory, we would simply have fact... such as the fact of microbial evolution, the fact that DNA exists and so forth.

This means that theory is not something verifiable through observation, but a systematic method of understanding complex reality in a way that is parsimoniously comprehensible. If competing theories have also yet to be disproved then there is no 'right' theory, only a trade off between utility and falsifiability -> the more general the theory, the less well it is defined concretely through variables and hypothesis -> the better it is at abstracting reality and the worse it is at being falsifiable.

The point being that a "theory" is neither the super-hypothesis that you seem to think it is, nor is it the half-witted conjecture that the gpp thinks it is.

It is a multidimensional abstraction of reality that, while useful for explanation and at some point empirically disprovable, must reside at some level of abstraction and thus make trade offs between its usefulness and dis-provability.

Comment: Re:I'd pay for Hulu... (Score 1) 234

by Saysys (#29854677) Attached to: Hulu May Begin Charging For Content Next Year
That is essentially it, as long as the value proposition (works like a DVR, commercials don't run longer than skipping through commercials on a DVR take, the price is the cost of internet access instead of internet + TV) then migration will happen;

Let say a reasonable HTPC w/ 1080p display costs $1500 and cable with a DVR costs $60 a month, hulu pays for your HTPC w/ new HDTV in about 2 years; Add to that a $5 a month fee for what used to be $15 a month HBO and hulu charging for premium content: Hulu w/ service, after the second year, saves the consumer ~ $850 a year

Comment: Re:Maybe because we treat them like criminals (Score -1) 757

by Saysys (#29782745) Attached to: The US's Reverse Brain Drain
US media is free, and you are free to chose who you listen to

the pre-university education system IS the best in the world!... not for everyone, for example, poor inner city youth are screwed, but for rich-white kids we have the best education on earth

The heath care system is free as well, but not in-expensive. Sure you need to pay $500 a month, but for that you get the best possible care you can get any-ware on earth... once more, our poor get screwed and our lower-middle class even more screwed. But if you are smart and hard working the US has the best health care any human can find

the government policies are some of the least intrusive of any first world country.If you don't like anti-pot laws or speed limits or whatever worthless freedom you find just so nifty in your home shit-hole: just go somewhere they don't care, like Montana or California.

the US is THE WORST first world country in the world.. if you are poor and lazy; but there is no place better if you are someone who can earn his own money because he has honed his talents.

The problem this article notices is that middle management people in the US are good enough to be CEOs back in the old-world; I don't see this as a problem because no matter what country you are in being top-dog is better than being middle-rung elsewhere, if only because you get to be in charge.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy

Working...