Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Short answer: No (Score 1) 294

by lexman098 (#48112943) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: An Accurate Broadband Speed Test?
I think part of the responsibility of the ISP to make the correct peering agreements such that my traffic isn't appreciably slowed within a reasonable area. When I use the default speedtest.net settings I usually see perfect speeds, but that website lets you select further out locations and often the next state over gives me horrible speeds. This is corroborated by lag in video games etc. The point here is that it's not just the ISP's responsibility to give me the advertised speed within their network. Those speeds are irrelevant. I want decent speeds all over my section of the country (at least), and it certainly *IS* the ISP's fault from my perspective if they can't properly deal with their peers.

Comment: Re:Exxon Wants To Kill The Planet (Score 2) 201

Maybe by "exxon" the OP was referring to the shareholders (owners)? No one's saying we should confiscate their profits, just limit the destruction they can cause in the pursuit of. You say WE should limit our own consumption of oil, but what you might not have noticed is that WE are trying on certain fronts to do just that. However, companies like exxon invest some of that large profit in preventing government (OUR) action on this front.

Comment: Re:Poor rats (Score 1) 85

by lexman098 (#47992519) Attached to: Device Allows Paralyzed Rats To Walk, Human Trials Scheduled Next Summer
How we deal with infestations is a different issue. We can argue that separately if you want, but what I saw was an animal that in all probability was forcibly paralyzed and then made to undergo painful experiments. Just because it's not intelligent doesn't mean it can't feel pain, and we're not talking about saving people's lives here. My position is that they should be doing these experiments on willing and already paralyzed people that want to give back to the scientific community for the sake of future generations. And before you ask, yes I would participate.

Comment: Re:Mapping the Nematode? (Score 1) 44

by lexman098 (#47277875) Attached to: First Movie of an Entire Brain's Neuronal Activity

You're not "back to square one", you've just done 99.9% of the job of killing the cancer, pretty much any other anti-cancer method will finish the job for you.

It's possible that at some point before a tumor developed there were 99.9% of cells that should have killed themselves actually doing so. The .1% multiplied into a tumor because there was nothing stopping it. The guy that replied to you was making the point that nature has already created multiple (I think 7 or so) mechanisms to get cells to kill themselves and eventually they all fail one by one due to mutation. Your expensive "inject every cell nucleus" method might fail just the same.

That's not to say it isn't worth pursuing. It could be very effective, but just remember all the other ways nature has already tried to do what you're doing before you get too excited

Today's scientific question is: What in the world is electricity? And where does it go after it leaves the toaster? -- Dave Barry, "What is Electricity?"

Working...