That reply is actually especially relevant to this discussion. I don't like Stross's writing much; the characters aren't very interesting and his plot twists aren't handled well, but I keep reading his works for the all the mathematically derived apocalypses and computer generated magic.
Speaking of The Laundry series, he had to change the villains in the Atrocity Archives after they, Al-quada turned out to actually be planning an attack on US soil.
I think he needs to start writing something pleasant and nondistopian, because it is looking more and more like someone is channeling his writing into the real world. Uh oh, I think he predicted that too, in The Jennifer Morgue.
Don't worry, he won't stop writing; he just won't publish this particular story. He's going to go write something else which he thinks you will enjoy reading even more!
You mean the only thing that made it worth while was the ancilary descriptions of technology?
These descriptions, to nerds, are like titty-shots in movies are to high school boys. Sure, maybe we go through the whole plot once once or twice, but what we really got the book for was to reread the technical, oh so technical, descriptions, and boners, err...uh, bonus for equations that we can work into simulations.
Also known as filler-between-technical-descriptions. I doubt anyone is ever entertained by that alone.
I tried to Google this; still not sure what you're talking about here, but it sounds boring too.
And this is a problem with the US justice system
"Been done since the 1980s" doesn't make it right.
It certainly does not, but my assumption from reading about this was that this was an overreaction due to the legal system's ignorance of technology, but now I'm realizing that this could be just plain overreaction due to the legal system's long standing record of overreaction.
Above, I'm noticing that most other commentators and moderators made the same assumption I did, making GPP an especially relevant post.
It would be like fining JP Morgan all the Trillions of dollars
It would be like fining the top _people_ at JP Morgan $trillions and then putting them on probation too.
The C[A-Z]Os could care less what happens to the company and the economy, they still get to go retire with their golden parachutes.
That would mean there'd be a pre-existing definition of the scent of cherry blossoms, which seems unlikely
Well, "cherry blossoms" no, but acetophenone, which evidently smells like cherry blossoms to reporters "activates a known odorant receptor (Olfr151)
Also, they don't claim an "aversion" was added to the descendents, merely a sensitivity. Assumably, allowing offspring to quickly pick up a strong aversion if they needed to.
More likely, the system would read the definition of cherry blossom scent from the amygdala together with it's threat assessment tag and add it to the presets.
Go get some acetophenone and mice; I'll look forward to commenting on your results.
the best talent comes from the programmers who don't advertise themselves...who doesn't have a flashy resume and doesn't try to show off his coding ability
The problem you have is, how do you find these people that don't advertise? And once you find them, their talent isn't shown on their resume and they don't show off their code in past past works, how do you detect it?
I'm not just trying to poke holes in your idea; as a developer with a really dreary resume, and an office that frequently needs to hire local talent, I would actually like to know,
New abstract coming up:
Using neck stretching, we examined the inheritance of parental stretching exposure, a phenomenon that has been frequently observed, but not understood. We subjected F0 giraffes neck stretching conditioning before conception and found that subsequently conceived F1 and F2 generations had an increased neck length. When neck stretching was used to condition F0 giraffes, the neck length of the F1 and F2 generations was complemented by an enhanced anatomical representation of the neck length pathway. Bisulfite sequencing of sperm DNA from conditioned F0 males and F1 naive offspring revealed CpG hypomethylation in the neck length gene. In addition, in vitro fertilization, F2 inheritance and cross-fostering revealed that these transgenerational effects are inherited via parental gametes. Our findings provide a framework for addressing how environmental information may be inherited transgenerationally at behavioral, anatomical and epigenetic levels.
Is this a distinction without a difference?
I don't think so. Experiments like these are showing that we can be altered more than we (at least I) thought possible by our (as in organisms') parents environment. However, I say that the distinction that new genes are not being added/subtracted to the genome is a pretty important difference since it better specifies that which can be changed. Also, importantly, the distinction means we don't have to throw out Darwinian evolution and replace it with Lamarkian as the first comment in this thread suggests.
But this is slashdot, so I predict libertarian resistance to sensible ideas about public policy and spending.
This is a site frequented mainly by real Americans so you will hear our freedom loving, capitalist ideals.
See, our founding fathers didn't need any of this antibiotic bullshit. When they got an infection, they chopped off the gangrenous body parts or died of the infection, like REAL AMERICANs! It's just too unprofitable to do otherwise.
Go back to China, but take this copy of the Atlas Shrugged and maybe you can come back some time.
I'm not sure if you're reply was arguing with my post or just a good place to post this info. It is certainly relevant to the article and sounds like it is also epigenetic research.
Since the Mods will never find me this deep in the discussion tree: I too will admit that I never heard of epigenetics until this morning when I saw this article; so, if your girlfriend says the predispositions are totally changing in the DNA or that I'm confusing terminology, I will take her word for it.
I feel like I know stuff, because some principles of this were provided in highschool biology (among later unofficial learning sources), but at that time no studies or applications were presented to us, probably to prevent us from failing to grasp Darwinian evolution, which sadly many of my classmates did.
Now that you know I'm totally full of: Though TFA goes back and forth over whether it's epigenetics or DNA that's being modified, I'm pretty sure the abstract is saying that the expression of the gene is being modified in the gametes (which does involve some chemical changes around the gene) but leaving the DNA sequence intact.
In your girlfriend's research: I would suspect that insulin sensitivity of cells has some DNA sequences already encoded in the wild-types whose expression can then be modified by diet, and that the DNA itself is still only subject only to Darwinian forces.
Just to clarify, this is epigenetics. They don't believe they are altering DNA, this just changes the way the traits already encoded in the DNA are expressed.
Nothing is being passed through DNA.
Zuck is married; he now wants concubines.
From your blog:
Who develops software? The same people who make money on our searches...the people who develop software aren't going to develop that program
You are never going to find helpful developers with an attitude like that. I don't work for a web advertiser, in fact of the 100s of professional software acquaintances I have, only two work with google, and they aren't in search or advertising. We are people too. We have varied political opinions and we have identities of our own to protect. We use and write whatever software we believe will be best for ourselves and others. There is no conspiracy against implementing your ideas, we just find them less practical than the ideas that we do implement. In fact, if you'd like your ideas implemented, but have somehow alienated all the developers around you: http://www.codeacadamy.com./
Besides, developers _have_ released tools for your ideas, but people just don't use them. For one example: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/trackmenot/. I built myself a similar program so I could better control the searches it was making. I thought it solved the "child porn problem" AthanasiusKircher was talking about, but the right combination of innocent words can still be used against you (plus it doesn't hide my cookie dough fetish). The other problem pointed out by the other poster, but also confirmed in practice by me, is that sort of people who are going to go through your search history don't care what chance there was that you visited a websites or your camouflager did. Depending on their motives, they will raise 3 times the shit storm or serve you three times the ads when they find you are searching ramen noodle fetishes and fruit fly sex on top of cookie dough pounding.
Back to your post:
flood the identity theft market with fake personalities
You first have to penetrate into the market place and earn some street cred pedaling and buying good identities. Easy to say, but I hear it's rather long and involved to do. Then, you can start mixing your fake identities in with the real ones. Except, you quickly blow the trust you earned with your buyers and have to go back to step one. If you are the FBI, it would be easier to immediately arrest everyone who bought the fake identities, rather than having to supply enough real identities so that sellers don't catch on.
Before blaming everyone else for conspiring not to implement your ideas, go try them yourself, you'll discover they aren't really as easy as writing a blog post. Also, know that this is what you sound like to us with the ability to implement your ideas. http://xkcd.com/793/