I work in academia. Half of the things we use are old, and it all works great! Old network analysers, old oscilloscopes, coaxial cables, computers running MS-DOS (not sure what version, but older than 6.2), expansion cards in ISA slots to control said equipment, dot matrix printers, FORTRAN programs, computers with 3.5" floppy disks as their only way to get to data,
Agreed. But maybe they should have changed the law before that happened. There is absolutely no reason why I (or Uber) would need a license to transport people in my car.
My point is that it would be better the other way round: If the courts would wait for the lawmakers to update the laws.
What a bullshit. They should instead adapting the law to the changing times. This is like deciding whether a computer is an abacus or a typewriter.
So if I understand correctly they are going to sell "medicine" that: 1. does not work 2. is not what it says on the bottle 3. is claimed to come from endangered animals So cheating is allowed now? I understand their good intentions, but everything about this is wrong. There are so many problems with this. Oh but wait, this is slashdot and it has "3D printing" in the title.
jan_jes writes: The soft robot, developed by Jaeyoun Kim from Iowa State University, can curl itself into a circle with a radius of just 200 micrometres. The tentacle was also able to grasp the egg of a fish called a capelin. Such miniature soft robots could be useful for microsurgery. The lassoing motion and low force exerted by the tentacle could be an advantage in endovascular operations, for example, where the target for surgery is reached through blood vessels. They describe their findings in this journal.
The government (regardless of which one) never misses a good opportunity to waste money. This needs to be investigated in-depth by a large committee of overpaid political and legislative experts who know nothing about robots.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with gene testing. And it is not "gene testing" who gets it wrong. The second part of the sentence explains it all: "... with different labs giving different interpretations." It is some of the interpretations that are wrong or in other words: bad science by incompetent "researchers".
Indeed if you take my reaction and that sentence out of its context it sounds stupid. But you can also try to understand the point I am making here. The first post talks about this being an "irresponsible" push of software, and an interesting reply follows about *who* is responsible, and *criminal* liability. So my (logical, I think) reaction is simply to say "who even cares about criminal liability at this stage, let's find the problem and solve it". It is also very well possible that nobody made mistakes or can be held responsible.
Who cares? People died and everything should be done to prevent a similar accident in the future. If that indeed involves a single person making a mistake, he will probably have learned from it and never make such a mistake again. Blaming someone will not make the problem go away.
No, there is no need for standardisation. There is simply a need to write clearly on the bill what it is for, or at least to be able to answer questions about it when asked.
If the starwars stuff gets +1 the comment above should at least get +2.
Must be the death star. Probably planned as a viral advertisement for the new Starwars movie.
Assuming this result is real, why is it not published in Nature? (I do not mean to criticise, I am genuinely curious)
What are they talking about? The last time I heard a "hobbyist" repairing a car must have been 20 years ago. Modern cars are way too complex too repair or modify at home or even by a professional without a fully equipped garage. I doubt that the small number of people who can actually pull this off poses a problem to the car industry. Conclusion: they have other motives.